12  >,  Ot> 


.CXN^^^^ 


X^ 


^^  ll^t   ®^^nizJ0ff^^  ^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J 


■«^, 


'fe 


■^^ 


BX    8018     .R53    1909 

Richard,  James  William,  18A3 

-1909. 
The  confessional  historv  of 


THE 


EC  4  1909     H 


£fi/(;AL  St^^ 


CONFESSIONAL   HISTORY 


OF 


THE   LUTHERAN   CHURCH 


J 


BY 


JAMES   W.  RICHARD,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

PROFESSOR    IN    THE    THEOLOGICAL    SEMINARY 
GETTYSBURG,     PA. 


PUBLISHED    FOR   THE   AUTHOR 
BY   THE 

LUTHERAN   PUBLICATION   SOCIETY 

PIf[LADELPHIA,    PA. 


Copyright,  1909, 

BY 

Marie  E.  Richard. 


PREFACE 


The  sad  service,  and  yet  a  privilege,  was  assigned  me  by  the 
author  of  this  volume  to  preface  his  work  by  a  few  words  expres- 
sive of  the  conditions  of  its  issue. 

Professor  Richard,  after  a  brief  yet  severe  illness  lasting  but  five 
days,  passed  away,  March  7th,  from  earthly  labor  in  the  full 
vigor  of  mental  and  physical  life.  Only  one-half  of  the  proof  mat- 
ter of  the  volume  received  his  personal  examination  and  correction 
before  his  death. 

This  volume  is  the  finis  as  well  as  the  ripe  fruit  of  his  studies  for 
twenty  years  in  this  department  of  scholarly  research. 

It  was  the  intention  of  the  author  to  append  to  his  volume  a 
bibliography  of  the  literature  pertaining  to  this  subject,  and  con- 
sulted by  him  in  its  preparation  ;  but  his  sudden  removal  by  death 
precluded  the  execution  of  the  purpose.  Fully  two  hundred  vol- 
umes, chiefly  Latin  and  German,  were  consulted,  all  of  which  are 
in  the  libraries  of  the  Theological  Seminary  and  of  Pennsylvania 
College,  save  about  twenty  volumes,  some  not  purchasable  and 
borrowed,  and  several  examined  in  the  library  of  the  University  of 
Leipzig. 

It  would  doubtless  have  been  a  great  pleasure  to  the  author  to 
read  the  reviews  and  criticisms  of  his  work,  and  to  elucidate  and 
substantiate  the  claims  resulting  from  his  researchful  labors.  But 
he  has  now  left  the  truth  to  vindicate  itself  on  the  pages  of  history. 
He  labored  to  reach  objective  facts,  and  to  relate  them  accord- 
ing to  his  consciousness  of  historic  verity,  a  consciousness  illu- 
mined by  wide  researches. 

The  loss  to  the  Theological  Seminary  of  his  living  personahty 
can  only  in  part  be  compensated  by  a  wide  circle  of  readers  Avho 
may  be  interested  in  this  historic  subject,  and  desire  to  be  profited 
by  his  fruitful  investigations  and  his  gift  of  creedal  discipline. 

Recognition  is  due  Professors  J.  0.  Evjen  and  K.  J.  Grimm  for 
their  kind  service  of  final  proof  reading  and  critical  suggestions. 

M.   COOVER. 
Gettysbukg,  Pa., 
April  26,  1909. 

(iii) 


In  aeteriium  historiae  Veritas  colenda  est. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  I. 
The  Beginnings  of  the  German  Reformation 1 


CHAPTER  n. 
The  Diet  at  Augsburg  in  the  Year  1530 24 

CHAPTER  in. 
The  Journey  to  Augsburg 36 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Composition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 46 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Materials  Used  in  Composing  the  Augsburg  Confession  .      61 

CHAPTER  VI. 
The  Delivery  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 74 

CHAPTER  VII. 
The  Characteristics  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  . 92 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
/'analysis  OF  the  Augsburg  Confession 104      \^ 

CHAPTER  IX. 
The  Catholic  Confutation 123 

(V) 


VI  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  X. 
Efforts  at  Reconciliation 138 


CHAPTER  XI. 
Efforts  at  Reconciliation. — Continued 157 

CHAPTER  XII. 
The  Efforts  at  Reconciliation. — Concluded 170 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Luther's  Rel.ations  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 194 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
The  Melanchthon  Editions  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  .   .   .    209 

CHAPTER  XV. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  from  1530  to  1555 234 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
The  Other  Old  Lutheran  Confessions 255 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

The  Old  Lutheran  Confessions  as  Ecclesiastical  Symbols  to 

1555 276 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
The  Old  Lutheran  Confessions  as  Symbols  from  1555  to  1580  .    289 

CHAPTER  XIX. 
The  Controversies  Within  the  Lutheran  Church  :  In  General.  311 

CHAPTER  XX. 
The  Anthropological  Controversy 333 


CONTENTS  Vll 


PAGE 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
The  Christological  Controversy 372 


CHAPTER  XXH. 
/The  Soteriological  Controversy 386 


CHAPTER  XXHI. 
Efforts  at  Pacification 400 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 
The  Torgau  Book " 418 


CHAPTER  XXV. 
The  Authors  of  the  Torgau  Book 432 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 
The  Censures  of  the  Torgau  Book 452 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 
The  Bergic  Book 469 

CHAPTER  XXVIII, 
Subscription  to  the  Formula  of  Concord 491 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 
The  Book  of  Concord 519 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

The  Symbolical  Books  in  the  Era  of  Pietism,  of  Philosophy 

AND  OF  Rationalism 546 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 
The  Confessions  in  the  Nineteenth  Century 571 


CHAPTER  XXXn. 
The  Confessions  in  America 601 


THE  CONFESSIONAL  HISTORY  OF 
THE  LUTHERAN  CHURCH. 

CHAPTER  I. 

THE  BEGINNINGS  OF   THE   GERMAN   REFORMATION. 

The  German  Refoi-niatioii  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  one 
of  the  greatest  movements  recorded  in  history.  But  it  cannot  be 
said  that  this  great  movement  began  on  this  or  on  that  day,  or 
that  its  existence  is  due  to  this  or  to  that  event,  or  to  one  or 
to  another  man.  It  was  a  phenomenon  of  the  times.  John 
Wyclif  was  its  morning  star.  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague 
Avere  its  proto-martyrs.  Savonarola  was  its  prophet.  The  post- 
ing of  the  Ninety-five  Theses  on  the  door  of  the  Castle  Church  at 
Wittenberg,  October  31,  1517,  was  an  incident,  or  one  link  in 
a  long  chain  of  events.  The  minds  of  multitudes  of  the  Clerman 
people  were  in  a  condition  to  understand  and  to  interpret  a 
challenge  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  as  they  then  existed.  The 
hierarchy  had  become  intolerably  oppressive.  The  priesthood 
was  corrupt.  Millions  of  German  gold  had  been  carried  across 
the  Alps  to  support  the  profligate  extravagance  of  the  Vatican. 
A  third,  perhaps  a  half,  of  all  the  real  estate  was  in  the  hands  of 
the  Church.  One  person  out  of  every  seventeen  belonged  to  one 
or  another  of  the  religious  orders.  Money  was  demanded  for 
baptism,  for  marriage,  for  extreme  unction,  for  burial ;  and  now, 
perhaps  more  shamelessly  than  ever  before,  indulgences  for 
permission  to  sin  were  sold  to  raise  more  money  to  be  sent  to 
Rome. 

The  Ninety-five  Theses  came  at  the  opportune  moment.  Had 
they  appeared  one  hundred  years  earlier,  their  author  would, 
undoubtedly,  have  been  led  to  the  stake  for  daring  to  call  in 
question  the  divine  right  of  the  Pope  to  forgive  sins.  The  cry 
of  "heresy,"  potent  still,  is  not  so  potent  as  it  was  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fifteenth  century.     The  one  hundred  and  two  years 

(1)         , 


1  THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

that  intervened  between  the  burning  of  John  Huss  at  Constance 
and  the  posting  of  the  Ninety-five  Theses  at  Wittenberg  had 
witnessed  a  vast  expansion  of  the  intellectual  horizon  in  Ger- 
many. The  Renaissance,  which  is  not  onlj^  the  re-birth  of  litera- 
ture and  art,  but  is  chiefly  the  transition  from  the  medieeval  to 
the  modern  world,  had  crossed  the  Alps,  and  had  found  a  wel- 
come home  among  the  sturdy  sons  of  the  North;  For  Germany, 
the  fifteenth  century  was  the  century  of  the  founding  of 
universities.  Besides  Vienna,  Heidelberg,  Cologne  and  Erfurt, 
founded  in  the  fourteenth  century,  we  now  have  Leipzig  in  1409, 
Rostock  in  1419,  Cracow  in  1420,  Greifswald  in  1456,  Freiburg 
and  Trier  in  1457,  Basel  in  1460,  Ingolstadt  in  1472,  Tiibingen 
and  Mayence  in  1477,  Wittenberg  in  1502,  Frankfort-on-the-Oder 
in  1S07. 

Knowledge  was  running  to  and  fro.  In  the  German  univer- 
sities the  poetry,  oratory,  philosophy  and  science  of  ancient 
Greece  and  Rome  were  now  cultivated  as  scarcely  anywhere  else 
in  the  world,  and  were  turned  to  the  behoof  of  the  Christian 
religion.  Thousands  of  young  men  were  speaking  the  language 
of  Cicero  and  w^ere  reciting  the  verses  of  Virgil,  Horace  and 
Terence,  and  were  beginning  to  drink  deep  from  Pierian  and 
Castalian  springs.  Even  the  cities  were  vieing  with  each  other 
in  establishing  free  schools  for  the  education  of  their  future 
citizens.  Nor  were  the  girls  to  be  neglected.  Already  in  the 
fifteenth  century  a  high  school  for  girls,  with  learned  ladies,  who 
were  not  nuns,  for  teachers,  was  established  in  Frankfort.  In 
the  same  century  also  came  the  printing-pi*ess,  which  at  once 
began  to  serve  the  cause  of  the  Gospel.  In  1455  the  Bible  was 
printed  in  Latin.  From  1462  to  1518  not  less  than  fourteen 
editions  of  the  Bible  w^ere  printed  in  High  German,  and  from 
1480  to  1522  four  editions  in  Low  German.  In  1477  the  Hebrew 
Psalter  was  printed,  and  in  1488  the  entire  Hebrew  Bible.  In 
1516  the  New  Testament  in  Greek  was  printed  at  Basel,  and 
in  1520-22  appeared  the  famous  Complutensian  Polyglot. 

Thus  the  fountains  of  wisdom,  both  profane  and  sacred,  were 
opened  to  the  learned  and  to  the  unlearned.  As  a  result,  Ger- 
many had  risen  to  a  higher  self-consciousness.  The  people  were 
thinking  for  themselves  and  w^ere  thinking  by  means  of  the  great 
thoughts  contained  in  the  old  classics  and  in  the  Divine  Word. 
Indeed,  Germany  had  now  laid  those  foundations  of  science  and 
culture  on  which  she  has  erected  herself  into  the  school-house 
of  the  nations.     The  old  regime  could  not  satisfy  the  new  condi- 


THE    BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   GEEMAN    REFORMATION.  3 

tions.  The  age  was  sighing  for  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of 
the  past,  and  was  yearning  for  the  freedom  held  out  in  the 
promise  of  the  future. 

But  reformations  are  not  wrought  without  human  instrumen- 
tality. They  await  the  coming  of  great  and  heroic  souls  who 
embody  in  themselves  the  experiences,  the  detestations,  the  aspi- 
rations, of  their  contemporaries.  And  among  the  great  and 
heroic  souls  there  must  be  one  who  is  greatest,  one  who  can  com- 
mand the  confidence  of  others,  one  who  by  nature  is  endowed 
with  the  qualities  of  leadership. 

1.     Martin  Luther. 

Martin  Luther  was  the  greatest  and  the  most  heroic  soul  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  one  of  the  greatest  and  most  heroic  of  all 
the  centuries.  He  was  great  and  heroic  without  knowing  it,  or 
without  trying  to  be  great  and  heroic.  He  was  born  with  a 
great  and  heroic  soul.  The  things  he  saw  and  felt  and  heard, 
the  experience  of  divine  grace  in  his  heart,  made  him  great  and 
heroic — this  Thuringian  peasant's  son,  who  had  begged  his  bread 
in  the  streets  of  Eisenach,  had  tortured  his  body  in  the  cloister 
at  Erfurt,  had  observed  the  corruptions  of  the  Church  at  Rome, 
and  withal  had  learned  that  "God's  righteousness  is  not  that  by 
which  God  punishes  sinners  and  the  unrighteous,  but  that  by 
which  the  merciful  God  justifies  us  by  faith, ' '  and  that  justifica- 
tion means  the  pardon  of  sins,  and  that  grace  means 
misericordia  Dei,  and  that  faith  is  confidence  in  the  promise  of 
God  for  the  sake  of  Christ. 

This  was  a  new  Gospel — rather  was  it  the  restoration  of  the 
Pauline  interpretation  of  the  Gospel — which  had  been  preached 
and  proclaimed  By  the  fathers  before  the  Christian  Church  had 
taken  unto  itself  the  rites  of  the  Jewish  and  of  the  heathen  altar, 
and  which  had  not  wholly  died  out  from  the  Latin  Church, 
though  it  had  not  been  proclaimed  in  all  its  fullness  and  sweet- 
ness and  power  for  a  thousand  years.  But  Luther  did  not  state 
this  Gospel  as  a  dogma  for  the  understanding.-  He  grasped  it  as 
a  living  experience,  as  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  When 
now  he  sent  it  flying  over  the  land  in  books  and  pamphlets  and 
songs,  the  entire  mass  of  the  German  people  was  put  in  motion. 
Some  heard  the  message  with  joy  and  some  with  indignation,  for 
all  eyes  were  turned  toward  the  monk  of  Wittenberg,  who  had 
declared  war  against  the  Pope,  had  confessed  his  doctrine  before 


4  THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

an  imperial  diet,  and  had  refused  to  recant  unless  lie  should  be 
refuted  out  of  the  Divine  Word. 

A  crisis  had  arisen  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  man 
of  the  triple  crown  was  in  danger  of  losing  dominion  over  the 
fairest  portion  of  Christendom.  ]Mohammedanism  had  con- 
quered almost  the  entire  field  of  Oriental  Christianity  and  the 
western  shores  of  Africa,  and  had  held  Spain  for  more  than 
seven  hundred  years.  ,  Shall  heresy  now  claim  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire  of  the  German  Nation  ?    The  very  thought  is  intolerable. 

In  1520  the  Pope  issued  the  bull  of  excommunication  against 
^lartin  Luther.  In  1521  the  Diet  of  Worms  placed  him  under 
the  ban  of  the  Empire,  and  the  Emperor  declared  that  he  would 
avenge  the  insult  offered  to  the  Apostolic  See  as  though  it  had 
been  done  to  himself.  But  the  "heresy"  spread  so  fast,  and  the 
areh-heretie  made  so  many  friends,  that  the  Princes  found  it 
expedient  to  refrain  from  executing  the  edict.  At  Speyer  in 
1526  the  heretic's  friends  were  defiant,  and  displayed  on  their 
armorial  bearings  the  motto:  Ycrhum  Dei  manct  in  (uternum. 
The  Diet  could  only  resolve  that  in  matters  appertaining  to  the 
Edict  of  Worms  each  Prince  "should  so  live,  govern,  and  carry 
himself  as  he  hopes  and  trusts  to  answer  to  God  and  to  his  Im- 
perial Majesty";*  and  the  right  Avas  granted  to  each  Prince  to 
determine  the  affairs  of  religion  in  his  own  dominion  according 
to  his  own  views.  ^Multitudes  of  the  people  had  now  espoused  the 
"heresy,"  and  Princes  had  taken  it  under  their  protection.  The 
"heretic,"  mIio  at  Worms  had  stood  alone,  now  had  more  real 
and  true  friends  in  Germany  than  the  man  of  the  triple  crown  at 
Rome.  That  is,  the  reformation  of  religion  in  Germany,  which 
began,  we  scarcely  know  when,  and  had  been  preceded  and  pro- 
moted by  events  and  conditions,  we  scarcely  kijow  how  many,  in 
less  than  nine  years  after  the  posting  of  the  Ninety-five  Theses, 
had  advanced  far  in  the  direction  of  success.  At  least,  till  the 
close  of  the  year  1526  foundations  have  been  laid  which  have  not 
t!i  this  day  been  shaken. 

But  in  order  to  understand  this  reformation  movement  we  must 
return  to  the  man'  who  was  at  once  its  most  immediate  cause  and 
its  leading  spirit.  In  the  year  1501  ^lartin  Luther  entered  the 
University  of  Erfurt.  Here  he  devoted  himself  chiefly  to  the 
reading  of  the  Latin  classics  and  to  the  study  of  the  Aristotelian 
philosophy.     Two  years  later,  he  was  proclaimed  Bachelor  of 

*Von  Ranke,  History  of  the  Reformation,  Bk.  IV.,  Chap.  III.  St.  Louis 
edition  of  Luther's  Schriften,  XVI.,  210. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE   GERMAN    REFORMATION.  5 

Philosophy,  and  in  1505,  ^Nlagister.     July  17.  1505.  he  entered 
the  Auiiustinian  cloister  at  Erfurt  and  devoted  himself  to  the 
study  of  theology,  with  the  Latin  Bible  and  the  tomes  of  William 
Occam  and  Gabriel  Biel  as  his  chief  text-books.    In  1507  he  was 
consecrated  priest,  and  ' '  received  power  to  oft'er  sacrifices  for  the 
living  and  the  dead."    In  1508  he  was  called  to  the  chair  of  Phil- 
osophy in  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  and  was  there  enrolled 
anno  1508  thus:  Fr.  ]\Iartinus  Luder  de  Mansfeld,  admissus  mox 
1509  d.  9  Mart.   Baccalaureus  tamquam  ad  Biblia.*  Here  he  lec- 
tured on  the  Dialectics  and  the  Physics  of  Aristotle,  the  same 
whom  he  subsequently  called  Damnatus,  because  he  taught  that 
one  must  do  good  in  order  to  become  good.  But  even  then  he  pre- 
ferred theology,  ' '  that  theology  which  examines  the  kernel  of  the 
nut.  the  fat  of  the  wheat,  the  marrow  of  the  bones."  t  In  1511  he 
went  to  Rome  where  he  heard  such  "vulgarities"  in  the  Mass  as: 
"Bread  thou  art  and  bread  thou  wilt  remain:  wine  thou  art  and 
wine  thou  wdlt  remain."  In  1512  he  was  promoted  to  be  doctor  of 
theology,  and  bound  himself  to  study  and  to  teach  the  Holy 
Scriptures. $     And  now  it  was  that  he  entered  the  career  that 
made  him  the  prince  of  Reformers.    We  soon  find  him  lecturing 
on  the  Psalms  and  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  and  studying 
Augustine  more  diligently  than  ever  before.    In  opposition  to 
Aristotle  and  the  scholastic  theology  he  exclaims:   "Prior  to  all 
obedience  the  person  must  be  acceptable,  for  God  looked  first 

*  Gieseler,  Cliurch  History,  IV.,  p.  17,  note  4. 

t  De  Wette,  Luther's  Brief e,  I.,  p.  6. 

-t  Walch,  XVI.,  1631.  St  Louis  edition  of  Lntlier's  Schriften,  XVI.,  1700. 
But  Lnther,  at  his  promotion  to  the  doctorate,  took  also  the  following  oath : 
Ego  .X.  iuro  domino  Decauo  et  Magistris  faeultatis  Theologice  Obedientiam 
et  Eeuerentiani  debitam,  Quod  In  quocumque  statu  vtilitatem  Vniuersita- 
tis  et  Maxime  faeultatis  Theologice  pro  virili  mea  procurabo,  Sed  huni- 
gradum  non  reiterabo.  Quod  omnes  Actus  Theologicos  exercebo  In  mitra 
(.Nisi  fuerit  religiosus.),  vauas  peregrinas  doctrinas  ab  ecclesia  dampnatas 
et  piarum  aurium  offensiuas  non  dogmatisabo,  Sed  dogmatisantem  domino 
Decano  denunctiabo  infra  octendium,  Quod  manutenebo  consuetudines, 
libertates  et  priuilegia  Theologice  faeultatis  pro  virilj  mea,  Vt  me  deus 
adiuuet  et  sanctorum  euangeliorum  conditores.  Quod,  si  fuerit  Biblicus, 
interserat.  Quod  stabo  integrum  annum  in  Biblia  (Nisi  fuerit  Religiosus, 
cuj  Semestre  deputamus),  Quod  singulis  annis  semel  ordinarie  respondebo, 
Et  Decano  lubente  sermonem  faciam  ad  clerum,  Et  quod  vltra  caput 
lectionatim  non  absoluam.  Si  fuerit  Sententiarius:  Quod  quemlibet  librum 
solempniter  auspicabor  premissa  oratione  commendatitia  sacre  pagine,  Nec- 
non  questione  correspondente  materie  libri  mej.  Quod  Tertium  non  incipiam, 
Nisi  prius  pecierim  pro  formatura  et  publice  loco  examinis  responderim, 
Quod  etiam  duobus  Annis  in  Sententijs  perseuerabo.  Si  fuerit  Licentiatus, 
Iuro  etiam  Romane  ecclesie  obedientiam,  Et  procurabo  pacem  inter  Magis- 
tros  et  Scholasticos  Seculares  et  Religiosos,  Et  pirhetum  In  nullo  aho  gym- 
nasio  recipiam.  From  the  Statuta  Collegij  Theologici  in  Forstemann's  Ltber 
Decanorum,  pp.  146-7.  Luther's  career  from  the  year  1.517  on  is  an  instruc- 
tive comment  on  this  oath. 


6  THE    BEGINNINGS   OF   THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

upon  Abel  and  then  upon  his  gift."  On  Psalm  Ixiv.  14,  he 
wrote:  "God  will  work  justification.  This  operates  against 
Aristotle,  who  wrote  that  we  become  righteous  when  we  do 
righteous  deeds.  Much  rather  must  a  person  be  righteous  before 
he  can  work  righteousness."  And  May  18,  1516,  he  wrote  to 
John  Lange:  "Aristotle  is  gradually  going  down,  and  will 
soon  be  overthrown,  perhaps  forever.  The  lectures  on  the  Sen- 
tentiaries  are  held  in  complete  disgust.  No  one  may  hope  for  an 
audience  who  is  not  willing  to  teach  this  theology,  that  is,  the 
Bible  and  Augustine,  or  some  other  doctor  of  authority  in  the 
Church."*  And  as  at  this  time  he  came  under  the  influence  of 
Tauler  and  of  the  Theologia  Germanica,  he  soon  abandoned 
Scholasticism  forever,  and  preached  against  indulgences  in  the 
confessional  and  on  the  pulpit.  Finally,  the  Ninety-five  Theses 
came,  and  a  sermon  on  indulgences  and  grace. 

•Here  were  the  words  that  spoke  a  new  era  into  being  and  gave 
a  new  date  to  the  history  of  the  Church  and  of  the  world.  Here 
the  chief  thoughts  are  that  the  Pope  has  no  power  to  remit  penal- 
ties except  those  which  he  himself  has  imposed  by  his  own 
authority,  and  that  "the  true  treasure  of  the  Church  is  the  Holy 
Grospel  of  the  glory  and  grace  of  God."  Jacob  Hochstratten 
cried  Heresy.  Conrad  Wimpina,  Sylvester  Prierias,  John  Eck 
and  others  entered  the  lists  in  defense  of  the  old  regime  and  of 
the  traditional  teaching.  But  the  Wittenberg  monk  went  on 
disputing,  and  writing,  and  publishing  books,  "compelled,  nolens, 
volens,  to  become  more  learned  every  day,  since  so  many  great 
masters  are  urging  me  on  and  giving  me  practice,"  as  he  says 
of  himself.  In  the  year  1520  he  sends  forth  his  Three  Great 
Reformation  Writings:  To  the  Christian  Nobility  of  the  German 
Nation;  Concerning  Christian  Liberty;  On  the  Babylonish  Cap- 
tivity of  the  Church. 

In  the  first  he  batters  down  the  three  walls  of  the  Romanists. 
The  first  wall  is  the  claim  that  the  spiritual  power  is  superior  to 
the  temporal ;  the  second  is  that  no  one  may  interpret  the  Script- 
ures except  the  Pope ;  the  third  is  that  no"  one  may  call  a  council 
except  the  Pope.  The  first  wall  is  battered  down  by  the  doctrine 
that  all  Christians  are  priests,  and  that  if  a  company  of  Christian 
laymen  should  be  carried  into  a  desert  and  should  agree  to  elect 
one  of  their  number  to  baptize,  to  celebrate  Mass,  to  absolve  and 
to  preach, — "this  man  would  as  truly  be  a  priest,  as  if  all  the 
Bishops  and  all  the  Popes  had  consecrated  him."  Against  the 
*  De  Wette,  Luther's  Brief c.  I.,  17. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OP'   THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION.  7 

second  he  hurls  the  Article  of  the  Creed:  I  believe  in  a  holy 
Christian  Church.  If  the  Pope  were  right,  then  we  should  have  to 
say:  "I  believe  in  the  Pope  of  Eomc,  and  reduce  the  Christian 
Church  to  one  man,  which  is  a  devilish  and  damnable  heresy.** 
The  third  wall  falls  as  soon  as  the  other  two  have  fallen.  The 
Scriptures  do  not  say  that  the  Pope  "has  the  sole  power  to  call 
and  confirm  councils."  Since  the  civil  authorities  are  fellow 
Christians  and  fellow  priests,  they  have  the  right  to  call  coun- 
cils when  there  is  need.  He  then  proposes  twenty-seven  articles 
respecting  the  reformation  of  the  Christian  estate,  in  which  he 
announces  a  programme  for  the  complete  reorganization  of  so- 
ciety and  the  Church. 

In  the  essay  on  Christian  Liberty  he  lays  down  and  defends 
these  two  propositions:  "A  Christian  man  is  the  most  free  lord 
of  all,  and  is  subject  to  none ;  a  Christian  man  is  the  most  duti- 
ful servant  of  all,  and  is  subject  to  every  one."  This  paradox 
contains  the  essence  of  all  that  is  taught  on  the  subject  of  justifi- 
cation by  faith  and  of  all  that  is  taught  on  the  subject  of  love. 
For  all  is  done  by  faith,  "which  makes  us  not  only  kings  and 
the  freest  of  all,  but  also  priests  forever,  a  dignity  far  higher 
than  kingship,  because  by  that  priesthood  we  are  worthy  to  ap- 
pear before  God,  to  pray  for  others  and  to  teach  each  other 
mutually  the  things  which  are  of  God." 

In  A  Prelude  on  the  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Church, 
Luther  seeks  to  shatter  the  entire  sacramental  system  of  the 
Koman  Catholic  Church.  Transubstantiation  "must  be  held  as 
a  figment  of  human  opinion,  for  it  rests  on  no  support  of  Script- 
ure or  reason."  "The  sacrament  of  the  Altar  is  the  testament 
of  Christ,  which  he  left  behind  him  at  his  death,  distributing 
an  inheritance  to  those  who  believe  in  him.  Baptism  also  is  a 
promise,  and  its  profit  depends  on  faith,  for  unless  thi^s  faith 
exists  and  is  applied,  baptism  profits  nothing."  The  other  so- 
called  sacraments,  as  they  exist  and  are  practiced  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  are  rejected.  ' '  If  w^e'  speak  with  perfect  ac- 
curacy, there  are  only  two  sacraments  in  the  Church  of  God, 
Baptism  and  the  Bread."  It  is  denied  that  the  INIass  is  a  sacri- 
fice, and  it  is  affirmed  that  Baptism  does  not  justify,  but  faith 
in  the  promise  to  which  Baptism  is  added.  In  a  word,  the 
treatise  is  directed  essentially  against  the  opus  operatuni.  or  the 
doctrine  that  a  sacrament  is  salutary  simply  because  it  has  been 
administered. 

These  three  treatises,  produced  in  quick  succession,  have  been 


O  THE   BEGINNINGS    OF   THE    (;ERMAN    REFORMATION. 

very  appropriately  called  The  First  Frinciples  of  the  Reforma- 
tion* for  they  entered  fundamentally  and  vitally  into  the  entire 
subsequent  movement,  guided  its  course  and  secured  its  triumph. 
At  Worms  Luther  was  called  on  to  renounce  these  principles. 
When  he  refused  to  do  so  he  at  once  translated  them  into  vivid 
reality  and  action,  and  made  them  the  programme  for  himself 
and  his  followers.  They  involved  the  translation  of  the  Bible, 
which  was  begun  the  next  year  on  the  Wartburg:  the  purifica- 
tion of  worship  which  was  heralded  by  The  Order  of  Worship 
in  the  Congregation,  1523,  in  which  the  author  sounds  the  key- 
note :  ' '  Where  God 's  Word  is  not  preached,  it  were  better 
neither  to  sing,  nor  to  read,  nor  to  assemble ' ' ;  and  by  The  For- 
mula Missae,  1523,  which  abolished  the  Canon  of  the  Mass  and 
introduced  the  communion  under  both  kinds :  and  by  the  German 
Mass,  1525-6,  which  "was  to  be  arranged  on  account  of  the  un- 
educated laity, '"  which,  together  with  the  Formula  Missae,  has 
been  followed  as  a  model,  and  has  exerted  a  normating  influence 
on  worship  ifi  the  entire  Lutheran  Church,  t  In  the  meanwhile 
(1524)  appeared  the  first  German  hymn-book,  known  as  the 
Achtliederhuch ,  because  it  contained  eight  hymns,  four  from 
the  pen  of  Luther,  three  from  that  of  Paul  Speratus,  and  one 
from  an  unknown  author — the  small  beginning  of  a  rich  and 
powerful  development  which  quickly  spread  over  all  Germany 
and  helped  to  make  the  Lutheran  Church  pre-eminently  a  singing 
Church. 

In  the  year  1524  the  Eucharistic  Controversy  broke  out,  which, 
on  the  part  of  Luther,  culminated  in  the  so-called  Great  Con- 
fession of  the  Lord's  Supper,  1528,  in  which  he  proposed  three 
things:  (a)  To  convince  his  friends  that  the  fanatics  have  not 
made  answer  to  his  reasoning;  (b)  to  explain  the  passages  that 
have  reference  to  the  sacraments;  (c)  to  acknowledge  every 
article  of  his  faith  as  an  answer  to  his  opponents,  both  during 
his  lifetime  and  after  his  death.  In  this  same  year  were  pub- 
lished the  Visitation  Articles,  composed  by  Melanchthon  and 
edited  by  Luther  and  Bugenhagen,  as  "an  evidence  and  con- 
fession of  faith."  on  which  the  churches  in  Saxony  were  re- 
organized according  to  the  evangelical  doctrine  and  principles 

*  These  essays  are  accessible  in  English  in  a  book  entitled:  First  Prin- 
ciples of  the  Feformation.  Edited  by  Drs.  Wace  and  Buchheim.  Lutheran 
Publication   Society.     Philadelphia,  Pa. 

t Luther's  three  formal  treatises  on  worship  are  given  in  English  in 
Christian  Worship.  By  Eichard  and  Painter.  Lutheran  Publication  Society. 
Philadelphia,  Pa.     The  originals  are  given  by  Richter  in  Kirchenordnungen. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION.  9 

of  worship.  In  the  next  year  Liither  sent  out  the  two  catechisms 
as  a  remedy  for  the  alarming  religious  ignorance  which  he  had 
witnessed  among  the  people  during  the  Visitation,  and  Avhich 
are  still  reckoned  among  the  jewels  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 
P  Also  in  the  year  1529,  perhaps  in  Jul}'  or  August,  Luther 
"helped  to  compose"  the  Articles  of  Alliance  between  Saxony, 
;  Niirnberg  and  Franconian  Brandenburg.  We  say  "helped  to 
compose,"  for  this  is  the  language  by  which  Luther  sets  forth 
his  relation  to  those  articles,  which  are  now  more  commonly 
known  as  "the  Schwabach  Articles";  and  we  know  from  an 
official  declaration  made  at  Schmalkald,  in  December,  1529, 
that  "the  articles  of  faith  were  very  carefully  considered,  and 
were  composed  with  the  wise  counsel  of  learned  and  unlearned 
counsellors,"  that  is,  they  had  been  composed  by  the  theologians 
land  the  civil  counsellors.*  Hence  Ithere  can  be  no  doubt  that 
!the  hand  of  Melanchthon  was  quite  as  active  in  composing  those 
[articles  as  was  the  hand  of  Luther^for  Melanchthon  at  that  time 
was  just  as  hostile  towards  the  Zwingiians  as  was  Luther  ( as  will 
be  seen  a  little  later),  and  he  generally  acted  as  penman  when 
the  theological  views  held  in  common  by  the  Wittenberg  teachers 
I  were  to  be  stated  in  writing. 

October  4th  of  this  same  year  Luther  wrote  the  so-called  Mar- 
burg Articles,  which  are  an  abbreviated  and  moderated  revision 
of  the  so-called  ' '  Schwabach  Articles. ' '  -j- 

And  to  the  writings  mentioned  in  the  three  last  paragraphs 
must  be  added  Luther's  Postils,  and  scores  of  sermons,  which 
had  been  read  and  pondered  by  all  classes  of  the  German  people. 

The  effect  of  this  popular  literature,  presented  in  Luther's 
wonderfully  vigorous  and  popular  style,  and  also  of  the  New 
Testament,  now  translated  into  the  most  classic  German,  was 
little  less  than  a  revolution  in  religious  thought  and  sentiment 
wherever  the  German  language  was  known  and  read,  so  that  a 
dozen  years  after  the  posting  of  the  Ninety-five  Theses  Luther 
had  millions  of  followers  and  adherents  among  his  countrymen, 
and  not  a  few  even  beyond  the  mountains  and  the  seas. 

2.     Melanchthon. 
No  history  of  the  German  Reformation,  whether  we  consider 
its  beginning,  its  progress,  or  its  conclusion,  can  be  regarded  as 

*  Strobel,  Miscellaneen,  IV.,  123.  See  also  von  Schubert  in  Zeitschrift 
fur  Kirchengeschichte,  XXIX.  Band,  3.    Heft,  365  and  note. 

tSee  the  article  by  von  Schubert  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Kirchengeschichte, 
XXIX.  Band,  3.  Heft,  passim. 


10  THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

complete,  which  does  not  contain  some  account  of  the  life  and 
labors  of  Philip  Melanchthon.  In  1518  Frederick  the  Wise  in- 
quired of  Reuchlin,  called  the  "phoenix  of  Germany,"  for  a 
Professor  of  Greek  in  his  new  university.  Reuchlin  recommended 
his  nephew,  Master  Philip  Schwartzerd  of  Bretten,  and  declared, 
"He  will  serve  your  Electoral  Grace  with  honor  and  praise.  Of 
this  I  have  no  doubt,  for  I  know  no  one  among  the  Germans  who 
surpasses  him,  except  Erasmus  of  Rotterdam,  who  is  a  Hol- 
lander." Melanchthon  accepted  the  Elector's  call,  and  entered 
Wittenberg,  August  25,  1518.  Four  days  later  he  delivered 
his  inaugural.  His  subject  was :  The  Improvement  of  the 
studies  of  Youth  (De  corrigendis  adolescentiae  studiis).  Every- 
body was  delighted.  Luther  was  in  ecstasy,  and  commended  the 
youthful  professor  as  "worthy  of  all  honor,"  and  as  "very 
learned  and  highly  cultured.  His  lecture  room  is  filled  with 
students.  All  the  theological  students,  the  highest,  the  middle, 
and  the  lowest  classes,  study  Greek. ' '  *  Now  more  than  ever  be- 
fore is  Wittenberg  committed  to  the  new  learning,  and  the  new 
learning  is  avowedly  to  be  used  in  the  promotion  of  the  new 
theology.  Henceforth  the  two  great  men,  the  hero  and  the 
scholar,  are  as  one  in  aim  and  in  purpose.  For  twenty-eight 
years  they  worked  together  for  the  purification  of  the  Church 
and  for  the  restoration  of  evangelical  simplicity  in  doctrine  and 
in  worship.  Each  supplemented  as  well  as  magnified  the  work 
of  the  other.  Hence  they  are  entitled  to  equal  honor  for  the 
work  of  the  Reformation.  Without  Melanchthon  the  posting  of 
the  Ninety-five  Theses  had  produced  only  a  monkish  squabble, 
and  had  ended  in  a  temporary  theological  diversion.  Without 
Luther  the  teaching  of  Greek  at  AVittenberg  had  produced  only 
a  higher  and  purer  humanistic  culture.  Their  combined  labors 
produced  the  German  Reformation,  changed  the  course  of  history 
and  hastened  the  coming  of  the  modern  era. 

In  the  Leipzig  Disputation,  1519,  Melanchthon  stood  by  Luther 
and  quietly  assisted  him  in  the  debate.  Soon  he  enters  into 
controversy  with  Eck,  and  defends  Luther's  position  in  a  way 
that  brings  astonishment  to  the  theological  world.  A  little  later 
he  defends  Luther  against  the  attack  of  the  Sorbonne,  and  shows 
that  no  council  had  condemned  Luther's  doctrine.  The  Parisian 
oracle  receives  such  a  contradiction  as  it  has  never  before  heard. 
The  Wittenberg  contention  is  now  lifted  from  the  ranks  of  the 
monks  and  of  the  people  to  the  lofty  plane  of  theological  science. 
*  De  Wette,  I.,  134-5. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF   THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION.  11 

It  is  Melanchthon  who  has  introduced  the  Reformation  to  the 
attention  of  the  learned.  It  is  he  who  gives  it  dogmatic  basis  in 
his  Loci  Communes,  1521,  which  Luther  called  an  "invincible 
book  and  worthy  of  being  placed  in  the  canon."  It  is  he  who 
organizes  schools  and  universities,  and  writes  their  text-books. 
He  writes  commentaries  on  Romans,  IMatthew,  Colossians, 
and  in  this  last  he  significantly  modifies  his  own  earlier  and 
Luther's  view  of  free-will.  Melanchthon  has  become  the  first 
theologian  of  the  age.  In  learning,  in  culture,  and  in  ability  to 
dispute,  he  has  no  equal  in  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  the  Ger- 
man Nation.  Thousands  of  students  sit  at  his  feet,  and  scores  go 
forth  annually  to  proclaim  the  new  gospel  from  the  pulpits  in 
central  and  northern  and  western  Germany.  Compulsory  con- 
fession has  been  abolished.  The  papistical  ]\Iass  has  given  place 
to  the  administration  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Preaching  has  been  made  the  central  act  in  the  divine  worship. 
Princes  and  imperial  cities  have  had  their  churches  reorganized 
on  an  evangelical  basis. 

3.     The  Diet  of  Speyer,  1529. 

Not  only  were  the  pens  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon  active 
during  the  twenties  of  the  sixteenth  century;  but  none  the  less 
those  of  Eck.  Cochlaeus,  Fabri  and  others,  in  defense  of  the 
Pope  and  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  its  theolog3^  Ger- 
many was  in  a  state  of  theological  war.  But  the  Pope  and  the 
Emperor  were  in  a  relation  of  political  and  military  antagonism. 
Hence  neither  was  in  position  to  act  efl^ectively  against  the  new 
heresy.  The  Diet  of  Worms  did  little  or  nothing  to  arrest  its 
progress.  The  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Speyer  (1526)  actually 
promoted  its  progress,  since  it  left  each  Prince  to  do  as  he  saw 
fit  in  matters  of  religion.  The  Diet  of  Regensburg,  1527,  made 
no  change  in  the  decree  of  the  Diet  of  Speyer,  but  resolved 
that,  at  the  longest,  within  a  year  and  a  half  a  general  council 
should  be  called.  But  as  a  condition  of  war  between  the  Pope 
and  the  Emperor  still  existed,  a  council  could  not  be  held. 

As  the  close  of  the  year  1528  brought  a  change  of  the  entire 
political  situation  between  the  Pope  and  the'  Emperor,  it  was 
resolved  to  call  a  Diet  at  Speyer  for  February  2,  1529.  This 
date  was  afterwards  changed  to  February  21st.  The  object  set 
forth  in  the  proclamation  was  to  consult  in  regard  to  the  Turkish 
invasion  and  the  religious  schism  in  Germany.* 

*  The  Imperial  Proclamation   and   the   Feichstags-Proposition   are  given 


12  THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

Ferdinand,  King  of  Bohemia  and  Hungary,  was  to  represent 
his  brother,  the  Emperor,  at  this  Diet.  He  was  as  much  opposed 
to  the  Lutheran  movement  as  was  his  brother,  the  Emperor.  Yet, 
like  Charles,  he  could  not  afford  to  make  a  complete  break  with 
the  Evangelical  Estates,  since  he  needed  both  their  soldiers  and 
their  money  against  the  Turks.  But  the  general  situation  was 
such  that  the  Evangelical  Estates  could  hope  for  very  little  from 
this  Diet,  since  they  found  themselves  hopelessly  in  the  minority. 

There  were  present  twelve  Spiritual  Princes  besides  abbots  and 
many  prelates.  Of  the  Catholic  Secular  Princes  thirteen  were 
present,  though  Prince  Erick  of  Brunswick  did  not  come  until 
April  20th,  as  likewise  also  the  Bishop  of  Cleve.  Eight 
Evangelical  Princes  were  present,  though  the  Dukes  of  Bruns- 
wick-Liineburg  came  to  Speyer  first  on  the  twentieth  of  April. 

The  Emperor  had  appointed  Ferdinand,  three  Secular  and  two 
Spiritual  Princes  as  special  commissioners  to  represent  him  in 
the  Diet,  which  was  opened,  March  loth,  with  the  reading  of  the 
Imperial  Proposition  by  these  special  commissioners.  The  Prop- 
osition sets  forth  the  danger  from  the  Turks,  and  asks  for  help 
and  support  against  the  invaders,  and  calls  attention  to  the  dis- 
orders in  the  matter  of  religion.  Here  it  was  emphasized  that 
since  the  relations  between  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor  had  re- 
cently changed  for  the  better,  a  general  council  would  soon  be 
held  in  order  to  bring  about  unity  in  the  faith.  But  until  such 
council  shall  be  held  the  Princes,  both  spiritual  and  secular,  are 
forbidden  by  the  Emperor,  under  penalty  of  ban  and  re-ban,  to 
allow  their  subjects  to  be  led  to  a  false  faith,  or  to  new  sects. 

The  article  on  religion  in  the  Decree  of  1526  was  explained  in 
the  most  arbitrary  way,  and  was  actually  declared  null  and  void 
by  the  Emperor  on  his  own  authority.  The  Estates  were  also 
commanded  to  take  the  Emperor's  interpretation  into  the  decree 
of  the  Diet.  This  meant  the  complete  abolition  of  the  Decree 
of  1526. 

In  a  committee  of  eighteen,  appointed  to  consider  the  Em- 
peror's Proposition,  there  were  only  three  Evangelicals,  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  Jacob  Sturm,  of  Strassburg,  and  Christopher 
Tetzel,  of  Niirnberg.  The  committee  was  ready  with  its  report 
April  2nd.  The  report  was  read  before  the  Diet  the  next  day. 
It  recommended  compliance  with  the  Proposition,  the  revocation 

by  J.  J.  Miiller  in  Historie  von  der  Evangelischcn  Stdnde-Protestation,  etc., 
p.  14  et  seqq.,  and  in  the  St.  Lonis  edition  of  Luther's  Schriften,  XVI.,  24& 
et  seqq. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF   THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION.  13 

of  the  Decree  of  1526.  and  the  enforcement  of  the  Edict  of 
Worms,  in  such  a  way  that  in  those  territories  where  the  edict 
had  been  obeyed  there  could  be  no  further  secession  to  the  evan- 
gelical faith :  and  in  those  lands  in  which  the  new  doctrine  had 
found  entrance,  and  from  which  it  could  not  be  expelled  with- 
out the  use  of  force,  all  further  innovations  are  rigidly  to  be 
avoided  until  the  meeting  of  the  proposed  council.* 

The  Evangelical  Estates  rejected  this  proposition  and  declared 
that  they  would  abide  by  the  Decree  of  1526.  Then  the  majority 
asked  that  the  report  be  returned  to  the  committee  for  modifica- 
tion. But  as  the  modification  proposed  still  annulled  the  Decree 
(if  1526.  the  Evangelical  members  of  the  committee,  the  Elector 
of  Saxony,  Jacob  Sturm  and  Christopher  Tetzel,  refused  to  sign 
the  report  of  the  committee ;  but  they  declared  themselves  ready 
t(i  submit  to  an  authoritative  explanation  of  the  Decree  of  1526. 
The  committee  was  unwilling  to  make  further  concessions,  and 
delivered  its  report  to  the  Estates  as  the  judgment  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

The  Diet  held  session  after  session,  as  the  Evangelicals  still 
refused  to  surrender  their  rights  under  the  Decree  of  1526.  Fin- 
ally, April  19th,  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  committee  was 
adopted  and  became  a  law  of  the  Empire.  Against  this  action  of 
the  majority  the  Evangelicals  hastily  drew  up  an  ansAver  and 
laid  it  before  the  King,  who  haughtily  rejected  it,  declaring  that 
he  Avas  acting  under  instructions  from  the  Emperor,  and  that 
the  case  was  settled.  The  Evangelicals  then  had  their  protest 
read  in  the  Diet  and  incorporated  in  the  minutes,  and  declared 
that  they  would  take  no  further  part  in  the  Diet.-j- 

The  burden  of  the  protest  was  that  the  Decree  of  1526  had 
been  abolished  prior  to  the  decision  of  a  general  council. 

The  next  day,  April  20th.  the  protest,  rewritten,  expanded  in 
form,  but  not  changed  in  meaning,  expressly  named  Protest,  and 
dated  April  20.  1529.  was  signed  by  John.  Elector  of  Saxony, 
the  ^Margrave'  of  Brandenburg  in  Franconia,  Ernest  Duke  of 
Brunswick-Liineburg.  Philip  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  and  Wolfgang 
Prince  of  Anhalt.i 

Efforts  at  reconciliation,  made  by  certain  Catholic  Princes, 
were  unavailing,  as  the  King  was  inexorable,  and  as  the  Protest- 

""  The  Decree  and  the  Protest  that  followed  are  given  in  a  Latin  text  by 
Coelestin,  Eistoria,  II.,  192  et  seqq. 

tHauser,  Die  Protestation  von  Speier  (1904),  p.  19. 

iHauser  ut  swpra,  p.  20,  who  gives  a  facsimile  of  the  la.st  page  of  the 
Protest  and  of  the  names  of  the   five   subscribing   Princes. 


14  THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

ing  Princes  adhered  to  their  protest.  April  22d,-  these  Protesting 
Princes  were  joined  by  fourteen  imperial  cities,  namely :  Strass- 
biirg,  Niirnberg,  Ulm,  Constance,  Lindau.  IMemmingen,  Kempten, 
Nordlingen,  Heilbronn,  Reutlingen,  Isny,  St.  Gallen,  Weissen- 
biirg  in  Franconia,  and  Windsheim,  which,  through  their  rep- 
resentatives, signed  the  protest  and  refused  their  approbation 
of  the  decision  of  the  majority. 

On  'April  24th,  the  Diet  held  its  last  session.  The  decree, 
called  Recess,  was  read,  and  adjournment  was  pronounced.  But 
the  Recess  was  absolutely  silent  in  regard  to  the  Protest  of  the 
Evangelicals.  Hence  the  Protestants  had  to  consider  how  they 
could  give  the  necessary  legal  form  to  their  Protest.  In  order 
to  do  this,  the  five  Protesting  Princes  and  the  representatives  of 
the  fourteen  protesting  cities  met  together  Sunday.  April  25th, 
in  a  private  house  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  and  had  two 
imperial  public  notaries  draw  up  a  document  (Urkunde)  to  the 
effect  that  the  aforesaid  princes  and  cities,  in  opposition  to  the 
decision  of  the  Diet  in  reference  to  religion,  and  especiallj^  on 
account  of  the  annulment  of  the  decree  of  Speyer  of  1526,  and 
on  account  of  enforcement  of  the  Edict  of  Worms,  and  also 
especially  against  the  legality  of  the  Recess  of  this  Diet,  make 
an  appeal  to  the  Emperor,  and  ask  for  a  free  Christian  council 
to  examine  and  to  decide  on  the  matters  in  dispute.* 

This  document,  drawn  up  in  legal  form  by  the  notaries,  con- 
stitutes the  so-called  Appellation  to  the  Emperor.  John  Eck- 
inger,  Alexius  Frauentraut  and  Michael  von  Kaden  were  com- 
missioned to  carry  it  and  the  necessary  related  documents  to 
Spain,  and  to  present  them  to  the  Emperor.  But  when  they 
reached  Genoa  they  learned  that  the  Emperor  had  come  from 
Spain  to  Italy.  They  then  proceeded  to  Piaeenza  and  obtained 
an  audience  on  the  12th  of  September,  though  they  were 
treated  very  ungraciously,  were  distrained  of  their  freedom,  and 
were  forbidden  to  communicate  with  their  principals.  October 
13th,  the  Emperor  gave  his  answer  to  the  effect  that  the  Pro- 
testants should  submit  to  the  Recess  of  the  Diet,  and  that  he  had 
so  written  them.f  Nevertheless,  the  Protest  and  Appeal  could 
not  be  ignored,  either  bj^  the  Emperor  or  by  the  Estates. 

*  Hauser,  ut  supra,  pp.  27,  28.  The  Instrumentum  Appellationis  (the 
Appeal)  is  given  by  J.  J.  Miiller  ut  supra,  pp.  51  et  seqq.,  and  in  St.  Louis 
edition  of  Luther's  Schriften,  XVI.,  286  et  seqq.  Other  important  docu- 
ments connected  with  this  Diet  are  found  in  the  two  volumes  to  which 
reference  has  just  been  made.  See  also  von  Ranke,  History  of  the  Refor- 
mation, English  translation,  pp.  552  et  seqq.,  and  the  Eealencyclopadie,  vol. 
18,  pp.  594  et  seqq. 

t  For  particulars  see  Sleidan,  Bk.  VII.    Ad  iniiium. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION.  15 

There  at  Speyer  five  Princes  of  the  Empire  and  fourteen  im- 
perial cities  had  declared  that  in  imitation  of  their  ancestors  they 
were  willing  to  sacrifice  their  lives  and  spend  their  fortunes  in 
the  service  of  the  Emperor,  but  that  in  the  present  case  they 
have  to  do  with  matters  pertaining  to  the  salvation  of  their  souls ; 
that  for  years  there  had  been  dissensions  and  quarrels  about 
religion ;  that  no  redress  of  the  grievances  of  the  Princes  had 
been  made,  and  no  heed  had  been  paid  to  their  demands;  that 
they  could  not  recede  from  *'the  doctrine  which  hitherto  they 
had  o"vvned  as  true  and  holy  without  denying  the  pure  and  un- 
corrupted  Word  of  God. ' '  That,  as  to  the  Popish  Mass,  it  is  well 
known  that  the  ministers  of  the  churches  within  their  dominions 
had  by  strong  and  unanswerable  arguments  and  testimonies  of 
Holy  Scripture  quite  overthrown  it,  and  in  its  place  had  ap- 
pointed the  Lord 's  Supper  according  to  the  command  and  institu- 
tion of  Christ ;  that  thej^  could  not  permit  their  people  to  restore 
the  Mass,  which  had  been  abolished;  that  all  men  knew  what 
was  taught  in  their  churches  of  the  presence  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  in  the  sacrament;  that  it  Avas  right  indeed  that 
the  Gospel  be  taught  according  to  the  interpretations  received 
by  the  Church,  but  the  question  still  was,  What  is  the  true 
Church?  that  the  only  sure  and  infallible  way  was  to  stick  to 
the  plain  and  simple  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments;  that  the  decree  of  the  former  Diet  had  been 
made  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  concord,  but  the  present  decree, 
should  it  be  enforced,  would  bring  troubles  and  discontents; 
and  since  the  case  was  so,  they  did  not  consent  to  this  decree, 
and  would  give  reasons  for  their  conduct  to  all  men,  even  to 
the  Emperor  himself,  and  until  the  meeting  of  the  general  pro- 
vincial council  they  would  not  do  anything  that  could  not  be 
maintained  by  law :  that  after  all  they  were  not  ignorant  of  their 
duty  in  regard  to  what  had  been  decreed  about  living  in  peace, 
and  about  not  interfering  with  the  goods  of  others,  about  the 
Anabaptists,  about  the  preachers,  about  printing  and  about  other 
matters  of  importance.* 

The  Protest  and  Appeal  constitute  a  great  transaction.  They 
are  as  courteous  and  respectful  as  they  are  bold  and  courageous. 
They  are  the  declarations  of  men  who  had  convictions,  and  who 
were  willing  to  sacrifice  everything  for  conscience'  sake.     Their 

*  The  Protest  in  condensed  form  is  given  in  Latin  by  Sleidan,  De  Statu 
Ecligionis  (edition  of  1557),  fol.  98  et  seqq.,  and  in  Bohun's  translation  of 
the  same  (1689),  pp.  119,  120. 


16  THE    BEGINNINGS   OF   THE   GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

content  is  that  the  Recess  of  the  Diet  is  null  and  void,  and  that 
in  matters  of  religion  their  signers  will  conduct  themselves  ac- 
cording to  the  decree  of  the  previous  Diet  of  Speyer.  and  as 
they  thought  they  could  give  answer  to  God.  Wisely  and  well 
has  it  been  said :  ' '  The  Protest  of  Speyer  was  a  renewal  and 
expansion  of  Luther's  protest  at  Worms.  The  protest  of  a  single 
monk  had  become  the  protest  of  princes  and  representatives  of 
leading  cities  of  the  Empire,  who  now  for  the  first  time  became 
an  organized  party.  It  was  the  protest  of  conscience  against 
tyrannical  authority."'  *  And  von  Ranke  has  said  of  it :  '"Thus 
distinguished  princes,  chiefly  in  Northern  Germany,  thus  notable 
and  rich  cities,  chiefly  in  Southern  and  Western  Germany,  all 
united  in  one  thought,  formed  a  power  which  commanded  regard. 
They  were  resolved  to  defend  themselves  by  their  common  forces 
against  every  act  of  violence  from  the  side  of  the  majority. "  f 
Christian  Germany  was  now  divided  on  the  subject  of  religion. 
On  the  one  side  stood  tradition  and  the  hierarchy.  On  the  other 
side  stood  the  open  Bible  and  the  freedom  of  the  Christian  con- 
science. Neither  side  wanted  war.  Catholics  and  Protestants 
alike  desired  a  general  council  or  a  national  assembly  for  the 
settlement  of  the  dispute,  and  both  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor 
had  promised  a  council.  So  matters  stood  at  the  end  of  April, 
1529.  The  Summer  and  Autumn  was  a  period  of  anxiety  to  the 
Protestants. .  Luther  and  IMelanchthon,  at  the  command  of  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  rendered  an  opinion  decidedly  adverse  to 
the  Recess  of  the  Diet  and  in  support  of  the  Protest. t 

4.  Efforts  at  Alliance  Among  the  Protestants. 
The  Protesting  Princes  and  cities  were  not  in  full  doctrinal 
accord  with  each  other.  Philip  of  Hesse  and  several  of  the  cities 
were  strongly  inclined  to  some  of  the  views  of  Zwingli.  "In 
the  moment  of  need  the  Lutheran  Princes  had  not  hesitated  to 
unite  with  them.''§  But  no  sooner  had  they  separated  than 
the  old  antipathies  regained  their  ascendency,  especially  in  the 
minds  of  the  Saxon  theologians.  It  was  but  natural  that  it 
should  be  so.  It  was  in  the  spirit  and  in  the  habit  of  the  times 
to  require  perfect  agreement  in  the  faith  as  a  pre-condition  of 
either  ecclesiastical  or  political  alliance.     Hence  ''it  can  hardly 

"  Schaff,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  vol.  VI.,  pp.  691,  692. 
j Deutsche  Geschichte.    Seibente  Auflage,  3,  p.  11.5. 

J  J.  J.  Miiller,  ut  supra,  pp.  47  et  seqq.    Walcli,  XVI.,  .358-361.     St.  Louis 
edition  of  Luther's  Schriften,  XVI.,  283  et  seqq. 

?.Von  Ranke,  History  of  the  Eeformation.    English  translation,  p.  552. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE   GERMAN    REFORMATION.  17 

be  affirmed  that  these  theoh^gical  scruples  ought  to  have  been 
utterly  disregarded,  or  that  Luther  was  to  be  blamed  for  enter- 
taining them. 

"We  must  consider  that  the  whole  reformation  originated  in 
religious  convictions,  which  admit  of  no  compromise,  no  condi- 
tion, no  extenuation.  The  spirit  of  an  exclusive  orthodoxy,  ex- 
pressed in  rigid  formulae,  and  denying  salvation  to  its  antagon- 
ists, now  ruled  the  world.  Hence  the  violent  hostility  betweer- 
the  two  confessions,  which  in  some  respects  approximated  so 
nearly. ' '  * 

At  the  Diet  of  Speyer  the  Catholic  majority  had  forbidden 
"the  doctrine  opposed  to  the  venerable  sacrament  of  the  true 
body  and  blood  of  Christ."  This  action  was  aimed  at  the  cities 
of  Upper  Germany,  and  was  intended  both  to  arrest  the  Zwing- 
lian  influence  in  Germany,  and  to  win  over  the  Lutherans.! 
Nevertheless,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse 
concluded  "a  particular  secret  alliance"  with  Niirnberg,  Ulm 
and  Strassburg,  the  object  of  which  was  to  defend  themselves 
only  if  they  were  attacked  on  account  of  their  faith,  or  obstructed 
in  the  visitation  of  the  churches,  under  pretext  of  spiritual  juris- 
diction, from  whatever  source  the  attack  might  come.t 

Delegates  w^ere  to  meet  in  June  at  Rotach  in  the  Franconian 
mountains  to  consider  the  terms  of  agreement  and  the  ways  in 
which  they  should  assist  each  other. 

But  after  the  Diet  it  was  discovered  that  the  agreement  con- 
templated also  a  political  alliance.  This  might  easily  be  construed 
as  intended  to  operate  against  the  Emperor.  Any  procedure  of 
this  kind  was  contrary  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the 
Lutheran  theologians,  who  had  always  maintained  that  the  faith 
should  be  defended,  not  by  the  sword,  but  by  the  Word  of  God. 
Hence  an  alliance  such  as  had  been  contemplated  had  to  be 
abandoned.  The  Lutherans  could  consent  to  no  alliance  not 
based  on  absolute  agreement  in  the  faith.  The  Luther-Zwingli 
controversy  over  the  Lord's  Supper  was  fresh  in  the  memories 
of  the  Wittenbergers ;  and  the  cities  of  Ulm  and  Strassburg  had 
taken  sides  with  Zwingli.  Melanchthon,  who  believed  that  larger 
concessions  would  have  been  made  by  the  Catholics  had  the 
Lutherans  separated  themselves  from  the  Zwinglians,  reproached 
himself  for  his  silence  on  this  subject,  and  returned  home  in 

"  Von  Eanke,  wi  supra,  p.  565. 
t  Wurtemhergisclie  Kirchengeschichte,  p.  301. 

t  Von  Eanke,  ut  supra,  p.  563.  Kolde,  Beitrdge  sur  Eeformationsge- 
scMclite  (1896),  p.  96. 


18  THE    BEGINNINGS  OF   THE   GEEMAN    KEFORMATION. 

great  distress  of  mind.  He  wrote  to  one  friend  and  to  another 
about  it,  declaring  that  his  ' '  conscience  was  disquieted  ' ' :  that 
the  matter  had  caused  him  "  to  neglect  all  the  duties  of  friend- 
ship and  all  his  studies  ' ' ;  that  he  would  ' '  rather  die  than  to 
endure  it  longer  ' ' :  that  ' '  the  "godless  opinions  of  Zwingli  must 
on  no  account  be  defended. ' '  * 

On  returning  to  Wittenberg,  Melanchthon  made  his  scruples 
known  to  Luther,  whereupon  the  latter  on  his  own  motion  wrote 
the  Elector,  ]May  22nd,  and  warned  him  against  the  Landgrave. 
"  because  he  is  a  turbulent  man,"  and  against  forming  an  al- 
liance with  him  and  with  the  cities  of  Upper  Germany,  declar- 
ing that  the  proposed  alliance  is  not  of  God,  nor  proceeds  from 
confidence  in  God,  but  from  human  conceit ;  that  it  seeks  and 
trusts  to  human  help  alone;  that  there  is  no  reason  for  it;  that 
it  can  bring  no  good  results;  that  the  Papists  are  not  so  strong 
nor  have  so  much  courage  as  to  be  able  to  accomplish  anything ; 
that  to  form  an  alliance  with  the  enemies  of  God  and  the  sacra- 
ment is  to  become  partakers  of  their  sins.  The  cities  by  their 
' '  heresy  in  regard  to  the  sacrament  sin  in  all.  "  "  He  is  not  less 
an  infidel  who  denies  one  article  than  Arius  or  any  other." 
"  We  know  and  hold  that  they  are  wrong,  and  we  cannot  recog- 
nize their  error  or  place  it  in  doubt,  therefore  we  cannot  with  a 
good  conscience  have  anything  to  do  with  them."  "  They  are 
audacious  enemies  of  God  and  his  Word. ' '  f 

This  letter,  and  the  more  formal  opinion  that  followed  it,  very 
much  disturbed  the  Elector,  for  he  himself,  in  connection  with 
the  Landgrave,  had  invited  the  Zwinglian  cities  to  an  alliance, 
had  named  the  day  for  further  conference,  and  had  promised  to 
send  delegates  to  Rotach.  In  this  quandary  he  sent  Hans  von 
]\Iinkwitz,  his  chancellor,  to  Rotach,  but  instructed  him  to  con- 
sult the  Niirnbergers,  to  consider  the  question  of  conscience,  and 
to  agree  to  nothing  final,  but  only  to  a  scheme  for  an  alliance, 
which  should  become  operative  only  when  anyone  is  attacked 
' '  on  acount  of  the  faith  and  on  account  of  the  things  which  are 
dependent  upon  and  follow  from  the  articles  which  are  to  be 
treated  in  a  future  council. ' '  %  Thus  purely  defensive.  There 
w^as  no  agreement  on  the  Articles  of  Faith.  It  was  found 
that  the  Niirnberg  preachers  entertained  the  same  scruples  that 
had  arisen  in  the  minds  of  the  Wittenbergers,  and  that  they 

*  C.  R.  I.,  1069,  1075,  1076.    Von  Ranke,  ut  supra,  p.  564. 
t  De  Wette,  III.,  454  and  465. 

t  The  Instruction  to  Minkwitz  is  given  by  von  Schubert  in  Zeitsclirift  f. 
Eirchg.,  XXIX.,  3,  p.  382. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION.  19 

had  warned  the  council  to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  "Sac- 
ramenters. "  The  same  sentiment  was  entertained  by  the  ^lar- 
gravians. 

Hence  the  Recess  of  the  convention,  called  Confederaiions- 
Xotel,  is  very  general  in  its  character.  It  begins  by  proclaiming 
absolute  loyalty  to  the  Emperor  and  to  the  Empire,  rehearses  the 
essence  of  the  Speyer  Protest,  and  speaks  about  "the  Divine 
Word, "  "  the  Holy  Gospel,  our  faith  and  religion  ' ' ;  but  it  does 
not  say  what  any  of  these  are,  or  how  they  are  to  be  understood. 
It  then  declares  that  should  any  one  of  the  parties  to  the  alliance 
be  attacked  on  account  of  his  religion,  the  others  will  assist  him  * 
— substantially  a  repetition  of  the  instruction  given  to  i\Iink- 
witz.  It  has  none  of  the  elements  of  a  confession  of  faith. 

But  it  was  known,  and  had  been  again  and  again  declared  by 
representatives  of  the  German  and  of  the  Swiss  Reformation, 
that  dissensions  existed  in  regard  to  the  faith.  This  was  an 
inauspicious  condition  in  view  of  the  hostile  attitude  of  the 
Catholic  princes,  and  of  the  Emperor,  who  expected  soon  to  be 
freed  from  embarrassing  relations  with  France  and  with  the 
Pope,  Alliance  for  defense  on  the  part  of  the  Protestants  was 
but  a  dictate  of  ordinary  prudence  in  the  line  of  self-protection ; 
and  efforts  at  alliance  there  were : 

1.  Philip  of  Hesse,  who  was  strongly  drawn  towards  Zwing- 
lianism,  and  who  had  been  disappointed  by  the  issue  of  the 
Rotach  conference,  regarded  the  differences  between  the  two 
great  leaders  as  neither  fundamental  nor  irreconcilable.  He 
believed  that  the  common  interests  of  the ,  Protestants  were  in 
peril,  and  that  an  alliance  between  the  Protestants  of  Germany 
and  of  Switzerland  was  necessary  for  mutual  protection.  Ac- 
cordingly he  resolved  to  bring  the  chief  disputants  to  a  friendly 
conference  at  his  own  castle,  "  though  it  should  cost  him  six 
thousand  gulden."  Luther  and  a  few  of  his  adherents, 
and  Zwingli  and  a  few  of  his  adherents,  were  invited  to 
meet  at  Marburg.t  Luther  accepted  the  invitation  reluc- 
tantly. Zwingli  accepted  it  with  alacrity.  October  1-3,  1529, 
they  discussed  their  differences — the  first  day  Luther  with 
Oecolampadius,  and  Melanchthon  with  Zwingli — for  the  most 
part  in  a  dignified  and  friendly  manner.  The  Lutherans  did 
not  find  the  Zwinglians  so  heretical  as  they  had  imagined  them 

*  The  Confederations-Notel,  which  was  signed  by  the  representatives  of 
Saxony,  Brandenburg,  Hesse,  Strassbnrg,  Niirnberg  and  Ulm,  is  found  in 
J.  J.  Midler's  Historie,  pp.  236  et  seqq.    See  Kolde,  ut  supra,  p.  97. 

t  The  in\itatiGn  went  to  Wittenberg,  July  1st.   Kolde,  ((it  surpa,  p.  100. 


20  THE    BEGINNINGS    OF   THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

to  be.  Nor  did  the  Zwinglians  find  the  Lutherans  so  obstinate 
as  they  had  expected  to  find  them.  Both  parties  showed  a 
reasonably  conciliatory  spirit.  An  agreement  was  reached  on 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  of  the  person  and  work  of  Christ, 
on  the  righteousness  of  faith,  on  the  efficacy  of  the  external  Word, 
on  Baptism  as  more  than  a  symbol,  and  even  on  the  article  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  in  that  both  parties  believe  and  liold  that 
bread  and  wine  should  be  used;  that  the  Mass  should  be  rejected, 
and  that  ''  it  was  given  and  ordained,  in  order  that  weak  con- 
sciences might  be  excited  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  faith  and  love.'' 
But  they  did  not  agree  "  as  to  whether  the  true  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  are  bodily  present  in  the  bread  and  wine. ' ' 

These  points  and  numerous  others  were  embodied  in  fifteen 
articles  by  Luther  on  October  4th,  and  were  signed  by  Luther, 
Melanchthon,  Jonas,  Osiander,  Brentz,  Agricola,  Oecolampadius, 
Zwingli,  Bucer  and  Hedio.  They  are  known  as  the  INIarburg 
Articles,  and  will  ever  stand  as  a  monument  to  the  magnanimity 
of  both  parties.  According  to  the  latest  and  best  conclusions 
of  historical  science  they  are  based  on  articles  which  Luther  had 
"  helped  to  compose  "  for  an  entirely  different  purpose.*  But 
they  were  not  composed  and  signed  as  the  basis  either  of  a 
political  or  of  a  religious  alliance  between  the  two  parties.  Hence 
this  colloquy  failed  to  accomplish  the  object  for  which  it  was 
called,  though  the  colloquists  parted  with  the  best  of  feeling 
towards  each  other,  and  Luther,  both  on  the  way  home  and 
afterwards,  expressed  himself  again  and  again  as  hopeful  of 
pacific  results. 

2.  There  is  very  strong  reason  to  believe  that  very  soon,  per- 
haps immediately,  after  the  Rotach  conference,  the  Saxons,  the 
Margravians  and  perhaps  the  Niirnbergers,  began  to  move  in 
the  direction  of  the  formation  of  a  politico-religious  alliance 
based  on  the  confession  of  the  strictly  Lutheran  teaching,  in 
other  words,  on  articles  of  faith  as  the  same  had  been  taught 
and  were  held  at  Wittenberg. f  A  meeting  of  representatives  of 
Saxony,  Brandenburg  and  Hesse  was  held  at  Saalfeld,  July  8th. 
But  nothing  was  accomplished,  since  Saxony  and  Brandenburg 
would  not  unite  with  Strassburg  because  of  the  views  held  by 
that  city  on  the  sacrament.  Brandenburg  expressed  itself  on 
this  subject  as  positively  as  Saxony  had  done,  and  things  seem 
to  have  been  arranged  for  excluding  rather  than  for  including 

^  Zeitschrift  filr  Kirchengescliiclite    (1908),   XXIX.,  3,   342   et  seqq. 
t  Kolde,  ut  supra,  pp.  98.  99. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE   GERMAN    REFORMATION.  21 

Strassburg  and  other  Upper  German  cities,  though  Niirnberg  was 
to  be  included  in  the  proposed  alliance. 

From  Saalfeld  the  Saxon  court  went  to  Wittenberg.  Here,  it 
is  believed,  about  the  middle  of  July,  orders  were  given  for 
articles  of  faith  such  as  were  required  by  Saxony  and  Branden- 
burg as  the  necessary  pre-condition  of  the  proposed  politico- 
religious  alliance:  "  From  the  middle  of  July  to  the  middle  of 
September  the  work  was  done,  attended  by  official  communication 
Avith  Brandenberg.  At  the  middle  of  September  a  definite  de- 
cision was  made  in  regard  to  the  form  of  the  articles  as  a  pre- 
supposition for  the  alliance  of  the  Princes,  to  be  concluded  at 
Schleiz  on  the  basis  of  these  articles."  * 

Such,  it  is  believed,  as  the  result  of  the  most  exhaustive  his- 
torical and  critical  inquiry,  is  the  course  of  the  preparation  of 
the  so-called  Schwabach  Articles,  which  Luther  "  helped  to  com- 
pose,"—not  at  jMarburg,  October  5th  (Riederer,  Heppe),  and  not 
at  Schleiz,  as  some  have  thought,  but  at  Wittenberg,  and  Avhich, 
therefore,  preceded  the  Marburg  Articles.  These  articles,  sev- 
enteen in  number,  thus  composed,  were  carried  to  Schwabach 
via  Niirnberg,  where  the  representatives  of  Saxony,  Brandenburg 
and  Niirnberg  held  a  council  on  the  evening  of  October  15th. 
By  the  evening  of  the  sixteenth  all  the  delegates  found  them- 
selves at  Schwabach  except  the  Hessian,  who  came  the  next  day. 
]Monday,  October  18th,  the  transactions  were  begun  and  fin- 
ished.! Strassburg  and  Ulm  declined  to  accept  the  Seventeen 
Articles,  giving  as  the  reason  for  their  action,  that  articles  of 
faith  had  not  been  proposed  by  the  Rotach  Conference:  that 
these  articles  were  not  in  harmony  with  the  doctrines  preached 
in  their  churches,  and  that  they  had  received  no  commission  from 
their  constituents  to  sign  articles  of  faith.$  On  Tuesday,  19th, 
all  the  delegates  signed  the  Recess,  in  which,  among  other  things, 
it  was  resolved  to  meet,  December  15th,  at  Schmalkald,  for  the 

*Voii  Schubert  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Kirchengeschichte,  XXIX.  Band,  3. 
Heft,  p.  377.  In  this  connection  see  also  Kolde,  ut  supra,  passim.  J.  J. 
Miiller,  Eistorie,  pp.  280  et  seqq. 

f  Zeitschrift  fiir  KirchengescUcMe,  ut  supra,  p.  356.  For  slight  differ- 
ences in  dates,  Kolde,  ut  supra,  p.  110,  and  Bealencyclopddie,  3.   18,  p.  2. 

t  Miiller,  Eistorie,  p.  303.  Von  Eanke,  DeiitscJie  GeschicMe,  3.  127 
Weber,  Eritische  GeschicMe,  A.  C,  I.,  Erste  Beilage.  Von  Schubert,  in  the 
article  from  which  we  have  quoted,  Zeitschrift  fiir  Kirchengeschichte.  XXIX. 
Band,  3.  Heft  (Aug.,  1908),  in  thus  placing  the  composition  of  the  so-called 
Schwabach  Articles  before  the  composition  of  the  so-called  Marburg  Articles, 
regards  the  latter  as  an  abbreviated  edition  of  the  former.  His  argument 
is  sustained  by  such  an  array  of  facts,  and  by  such  strong  psychological  and 
critical  reasons,  that  it  has  commanded  the  consent  of  competent  historical 
scholars.    The  author  may  not  have  spoken  the  last  word  on  the  subject,  but 


22  THE    BEGINNINGS    OF    THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 

])nrpose  of  reaching  a  consensus  in  regard  to  the  controverted 
articles,  and,  if  pbssible,  to  conclude  the  proposed  alliance.* 

Meanwhile,  since  Rotaeli,  dangers  had  thickened.  The  Em- 
peror and  the  Pope  had  buried  their  contentions  in  the  Peace  of 
Barcelona.  It  could  now  be  easily  foreseen  that  the  temporal 
and  the  spiritual  head  of  Christendom  would  unite  for  the  sup- 
pression of  the  Protestants.  INIoreover,  the  commissioners  who 
carried  the  Protest  across  the  Alps  had  now  returned,  bringing 
the  most  dismal  reports  about  the  hostility  of  the  Emperor.  The 
affairs  of  the  Evangelicals  never  looked  so  dark,  and  the  need 
of  a  Protestant  alliance  never  seemed  so  imperative.  The  Land- 
grave had  become  more  insistent  than  ever  for  an  alliance.  As 
a  consequence  of  this,  and  of  the  perilous  situation,  the  Sclimal- 
kald  Convention  was  far  more  numerously  attended  than  either 
of  its  predecessors  had  been.  Besides  princes  and  counts,  nine 
of  the  protesting  cities  were  represented.  The  conclusion  of 
the  whole  matter  is  thus  presented  by  von  Ranke :  ' '  The  seven- 
teen articles  were  once  more  laid  before  the  Oberlanders  (who 
were  here  far  more  numerous  than  at  Schwabach).  Ulm  and 
Strassburg,  whose  example  was  usually  followed  by  the  others, 
definitely  declared  that  they  would  not  sign  them.  The  Luth- 
erans, in  an  equally  decided  manner,  declared  that,  in  that  case, 
they  could  not  enter  into  an  alliance  with  them.  Their  own 
earnest  entreaties,  and  the  zeal  with  which  the  Landgrave  ex- 
erted himself  in  their  behalf — urging  that  there  was  nothing 
to  be  expected  from  the  Emperor  but  disfavor  and  violence — 
were  equally  vain.  The  other  party  refused  even  to  communi- 
cate to  them  the  report  of  the  delegates,  unless  they  would  first 
declare  their  assent  to  the  profession  of  faith."  f 

Thus  the  several  efforts  made  to  effect  a  Protestant  alliance 
have  failed.  The  year  1529,  the  most  momentous  in  the  history 
of  the  Reformation  up  to  that  time,  closed  with  a  dark  and 
ominous  horizon.  Even  at  Niirnberg,  in  the  following  January, 
the  Lutherans  failed  to  agree  on  the  proposition  of  a  defensive 
alliance.    In  the  very  face  of  approaching  danger  they  stood 

his  conclusions  certainly  do  supersede  all  older  theories  of  the  chronological 
and  theological  relations  of  these  two  series  of  articles.  The  Schwabach 
Articles  are  utterly  incomjjatible  with  the  frame  of  mind  which  both  Luther 
and  Melanchthon  jsrought  with  them  from  Marburg,  unless  we  are  willing  to 
conclude  that  both  were  double-faced. 

*  The  Eecess  in  Weber,  ut  supra,  I.,  First  Beilage. 

t  History  of  the  Beformation,  English  translation,  p.  571.  See  also 
Strobel,  MisceUauern,  IV.,  112  et  seqq.,  who  gives  the  Protocol  of  this  Con- 
vention. And  Moller-Kawerau,  Kirchengeschichte,  3  ed..  III.,  93,  which 
gives  as  the  date  of  this  transaction,  Nov.  29,  1529. 


THE    BEGINNINGS    OF   THE    GERMAN    REFORMATION. 


23 


still  and  took  counsel  only  of  God  and  of  their  own  consciences. 
"Unquestionably,  this  was  not  prudent,  but  it  was  great,"  says 
von  Kanke. 

But  in  the  last  nine  years  Lutheranism  has  spread  amazingly 
in  central,  western  and  northern  Germany,  and  even  beyond. 
In  Electoral  Saxony,  in  Franconian  Brandenburg  and  in  Hesse, 
it  had  become  organized,  and  the  University  of  ]\Iarburg  had 
been  established.    The  cities  of  Brunswick  and  Hamburg  re- 
ceived each  an  evangelical  Church  order,  respectively  in  1528 
and  1529.    Schleswdg-Holstein  became  essentially  Lutheran  in 
1526.    Prussia  was  LutheraA  since  1525.    Magdeburg  had  been 
reformed  by  Nicholas  von  Amsdorf  in  1524,  and  all  the  churches 
of  Bremen,  except  the  cathedral,  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Luth- 
erans in  1525.  In  other  countries  also  the  Reformation  had  made 
important  advances,  as  in  Sweden,  where  it  was  introduced  by 
Gustavus  Vasa  at  the  Diet  of  Westeras  in  1527,  and  in  Denmark 
in  1527,  where  it  was  accorded  equal  rights  with  the  old  Church. 
The  cities  of  Stralsund,  Hall,  Liineburg  and  Liegnitz  had  re- 
ceived the  Reformation  respectively  in  1525,  1526,  1527,  1527. 
In  other  words,  Lutheranism  now  numbers  its  friends  and  ad= 
herents  by  the  millions.    These  millions  of  Lutherans  are  allied 
chiefly  by  a  common  opposition  to  the  Papacy,  to  episcopal  juris- 
diction, to  a  system  of  corrupt  doctrines,  to  an  immoral  clergy, 
and  by  the  determination  to  preach  and  to  teach  the  Gospel  ac- 
cording to  the  conception  of  it  that  emanated  from  Wittenberg. 
But  they  did  not  have  in  common  an  authoritative  declaration  of 
the  Lutheran  teaching.   This  was  now  their  greatest  need.   With 
this  need  staring  them  in  the  face,  they  started  for  Augsburg  in 
April,  1530.  Rotach,  and  ^Marburg,  and  Schwabach,  and  Schmal- 
kald,  had  been  prophetic  in  so  far  as  they  had  expressed  a  sense 
of  need.* 

*  Important  information  on  the  Eotaeh  Conference  and  on  the  Schwa- 
bach and  Schmalkahl  Conventions  is  given  in  the  Strassburg  Politische 
Correspondenz,  pp.  "269  et  seqq.,  400  et  seqq.  and  418  et  seqq. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  DIET  AT  AUGSBURG  IN  THE  YEAR  1530. 

On  the  29tli  of  June,  1529,  Charles  V.  concluded  "an  indis- 
soluble peace,  friendship  and  alliance"  with  the  Pope  at  Bar- 
celona. On  the  5th  of  August  following  he  effected  a  reconcilia- 
tion with  Francis  I.  of  France.*  Seven  days  later  he  landed  at 
Genoa.  February  22  and  24,  1530,  he  was  crowned  at  Bologna, 
first  with  the  iron  crown  of  Lombardy,  and  then  with 
the  imperial  crown. j  But  the  situation  in  the  Empire  was 
by  no  means  inspiring.  The  Turks  had  besieged  Vienna,  and 
were  desolating  the  fairest  portions  of  Austria.  Some  of  the  Em- 
peror's most  powerful  and  loyal  German  Princes,  and  fourteen 
imperial  cities  had  protested  against  the  action  of  the  majority 
at  Speyer,  and  with  their  Protest  had  sent  an  Appeal  across 
the  Alps  to  the  Emperor,  to  a  national  council  and  to  impartial 
judges.  Even  a  ruler  less  astute  and  less  diplomatic  than 
Charles  would  have  seen  the  necessity  of  calling  a  diet  and  of 
instituting  pacific  measures  for  removing  grievances  and  for 
averting  dangers.  Charles  was  equal  to  the  occasion.  Accord- 
ingly, January  21,  1530,  he  issued  from  Bologna  an  imperial 
Rescript,  summoning  a  diet  to  meet  at  Augsburg,  April  8th  en- 
suing. The  object  of  the  Diet,  as  set  forth  in  the  Rescript, 
was  to  counsel  about  resistance  to  the  Turks,  and  to 
consider  the  best  methods  of  allaying  the  dissensions 
about  religion.  The  references  to  the  religious  dissensions  are 
couched  in  language  at  once  mild  and  conciliatory :  "To  consult 
and  to  decide  in  regard  to  the  disturbances  and  dissensions  of 
the  Holy  Faith  and  the  Christian  Religion.  And  in  order  that 
all  dissensions  and  errors  may  be  abolished  in  a  salutary  manner, 
all  sentiments  and  opinions  are  to  be  heard,  understood  and  con- 
sidered between  us  in  love  and  kindness,  and  are  to  be  composed 
in  sincerity,  so  as  to  put  away  what  is  not  right  in  both  parties, 
that  true  religion  may  be  accepted  and  held  by  us  all,  that  as  we 

*  The  treaty  was  signed,  Augvxst  3d,  and  ratified  by  oatli,  August  5tli. 
Baumgarten,  Geschichte  Karls  V.  II.,  698-703. 
i  Baunigarten,  II.,  704. 

(24) 


THE    DIET   AT   AUGSBURG   IN    THE    YEAR    1530.  25 

live  and  serve  under  one  Christ,  so  we  may  live  in  one  fellow- 
ship, Church  and  unity."  * 

The  Imperial  Rescript,  couched  in  such  mild  and  gracious 
language,  at  once  dispelled  the  darkness  from  the  minds  of  the 
Protestants  and  awakened  hope  in  their  hearts.  It  recognized 
them  as  a  "party,"  and  gave  full  assurance  that  an  amicable 
settlement  of  existing  differences  was  to  be  expected.  They 
were  now  to  have  a  hearing  before  their  peers  in  a  diet  presided 
over  by  an  impartial  judge,  for  in  their  intense  loyalty  to  the 
Emperor  they  believed  that  he  would  judge  their  cause  with 
fairness  and  impartiality.  Accordingly,  when  the  Rescript 
reached  Torgau,  March  11th,  it  was  at  once  decided  that  the 
Elector  of  Saxony  should  attend  the  Diet  in  person,  and  it  was 
resolved,  at  the  suggestion  of  the  electoral  counsellors,  that  the 
following  named  persons  should  accompany  him  as  "learned 
counsellors " ;  "  Dr.  Martin,  Jonas  the  Provost,  Philip  IMelanch- 
thon,  ]\Iusa  of  Jena.  Dr.  Martin  and  Jonas  are  to  remain  at 
Xiirnberg  and  await  further  orders.  IMaster  Eislebeu  as 
preacher;  Master  Spalatin  to  be  employed  in  connection  with 
faith,  and  for  other  reasons,  together  with  other  scholars. ' '  f 

1.  The  Preparation  for  the  Diet. 
Not  only  did  the  counsellors  provide  that  the  Elector  should 
be  attended  by  his  theologians,  who,  in  their  own  persons,, might 
advise  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  that  had  been  preached  in  his 
dominions,  but  the  wise  senior  chancellor.  Dr.  Gregory  Briick, 
forecasting  the  importance  of  the  proposed  Diet,  addressed  the 
following  to  the  Elector  in  a  letter :  ' '  Inasmuch  as  the  Imperial 
Rescript  provides  that  the  opinion  and  ^view  of  each  one  is  to 
be  heard,  it  would  be  a  good  thing  for  us  to  bring  together  sys- 
tematically, in  writing,  the  views  maintained  by  our  party,  and 
to  fortify  them  out  of  Holy  Writ,  so  as  to  present  them  in  writ- 

*  The  original  is  given  by  Forstemann  in  Urkundeiibuch  su  der  GeschicJite 
des  Seichstags  zu  Augsburg,  I.,  2-9.  ' *  According  to  other  testimonies,  a 
formal  league  was  concluded,  at  Bologna,  of  the  following  import:  The 
Emperor  and  Ferdinand  were  to  make  every  effort  to  bring  back  the  heretics, 
and  the  Pope  was  to  supply  the  spiritual  means.  But  if  they  stubbornly 
persisted,  the  Emperor  and  Ferdinand  were  to  coerce  them  by  arms  and  the 
Pope  was  to  see  that  the  other  Christian  princes  assisted  with  all  their 
forces. ' '  Again :  ' '  The  Emperor  was  exhorted  to  imite  with  the  Catholic 
estates,  to  work  against  the  Protestants,  at  first  with  promises  and  threats, 
and  then  by  violence,  and  after  their  suppression  to  establish  an  inquisition. ' ' 
Gieseler,  Church  History,  IV.,  pp.  136-7,  notes.  To  the  same  effect  see  von 
Eanke,  3.,  p.  163.  See  Baumgarten,  Geschichte  Karls  V.,  vol.  III.,  24,  note. 
Brieger,  Geschichte  A.  C,  p.  46. 

t  Forstemann,  I.,  13  et  seqq. 


26  THE    DIET   AT    AUGSBURG    IN   THE    YEAR    1530. 

ing,  in  case  the  preachers  should  not  be  admitted  to  participa- 
tion in  the  transactions.  This  will  facilitate  business,  and  it 
will  serve  to  remove  misunderstanding  to  have  such  views  and 
opinions  presented. "  * 

In  all  probability  it  was  this  prudent  suggestion  that  induced 
the  Elector,  j\Iarch  lith,  to  write  a  somewhat  lengthy  letter  to  the 
Wittenberg  theologians,  in  which  he  informs  them  that  a  diet 
is  to  be  held  at  Augsburg,  beginning  April  8th,  ensuing ;  that  such 
diet  will  probably  take  the  place  of  a  national  council  that 
matters  pertaining  to  religion  are  to  be  considered;  that  what- 
ever is  not  right  in  both  parties  is  to  be  corrected,  so  that  "all 
may  receive  and  hold  one  true  religion,  and  as  we  all  live  and 
serve  nnder  one  Christ,  so  we  may  live  in  one  fellowship.  Church 
and  unity,  and  finally  thus  attain  to  a  good  unity  and  peace." 
He  then  instructs  the  theologians  to  prepare  "Articles  both  of 
faith  and  other  church  usages  and  ceremonies,"  and  to  present 
them  in  person  at  Torgau  by  Sunday,  the  20th;  and  further: 
"If  the  preachers  and  estates  shall  not  be  permitted  to  attend, 
ye,  and  especially  you.  Doctor  Martin,  shall  await  our  further 
decision  at  Coburg. ' '  f 
^  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  Imperial  Rescript  had  declared 
the  restoration  of  Christian  fellowship  and  unity  to  be  the 
religious  aim  of  the  proposed  Diet.  The  report  of  the  Saxon 
counsellors  to  the  Elector,  Dr.  Briick's  letter  to  the  Elector,  and 
the  Elector's  letter  to  his  theologians,  prove  to  a  demonstration 
that  the  Saxon  court  at  Torgau  was  fully  possessed  by  the 
thought,  desire  and  purpose  of  reconciliation  with  the  Church, 
and  that  they  all  enter  upon  the  preparation  for  the  Diet  with 
such  thought,  desire  and  purpose  in  the  ascendant.  This  is 
made  so  clear  by  these  and  other  official  documents,  and  is  ex- 
pressed with  such  evident  sincerity  and  simplicity,  that  it  be- 
comes a  chief  point  of  view  from  which  to  study  the  history  of 
I  the  Augshurg  Confession,  and  it  furnishes  the  necessary  cue 
\for  ascertaining  the  intended  meaning  of  the  Confession;  and 
I  it  explains  the  conduct  and  the  concessions  of  the  entire  elec- 
]  toral  party  in  the  negotiations  subsequently  made  at  Augshurg 
for  the  complete  restoration  of  concord  and  unity.  Hence,  noth- 
ing can  be  further  from  the  truth  than  the  representation  that 
the  Saxon  court  went  to  Augsburg  with  a  belligerent,  defiant, 
aggressive  spirit.   They  went  in  the  spirit  of  humility  and  obed- 

*  Forstemann,  I.,  39. 
t  Forstemann,  I.,  41-44. 


THE    DIET    AT    AUGSBURG    IN    THE    YEAR    1530.  27 

I  ience.  They  took  the  Emperor  at  his  word,  and  sought  to  effect 
peace  and  reconciliation.  Even  the  Wittenberg  theologians  and 
other  theologians  partook  of  the  same  frame  of  mind,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  their  letters.  Luther  wrote  to  Jonas  as  follows: 
^'The  Prince  writes  us,  that  is,  you,  Pomeranus,  Philip  and  me, 
a  letter  in  common,  to  unite,  and,  putting  aside  everything  else, 
to  make  ready  by  next  Sunday  whatever  is  necessary  for  the 
Diet  on  the  coming  eighth  of  April.  For  the  Emperor  Charles 
himself  will  be  at  Augsburg,  and  will  amicably  settle  (amice 
compositurus)  all  things,  as  he  writes  in  his  proclamation.  Hence 
to-day  and  to-morrow,  though  you  are  absent,  we  three  will  do 
what  we  can.  Nevertheless,  it  will  be  your  duty  also  to  obey  the 
Prince,  and,  turning  over  your  duties  to  your  colleagues,  to  join 
us  here  to-morrow.  For  all  is  hurry.  Christ  grant. that  every- 
thing may  be  done  to  his  glory.  Amen.  12  o'clock,  March  14, 
Anno  1530. ' '  *  On  the  day  following  Melanchthon  wrote  to 
Jonas  in  a  similar  strain  of  delight  and  gratification:  "A  Diet 
has  been  appointed  at  Augsburg.  The  Emperor  has  graciously 
promised  to  review  the  case  and  to  correct  the  faults  of  both 
parties. ' '  f 

But  this  exhilaration  on  the  part  of  the  Protestants  need  not 
affect  us  with  surprise.  Notwithstanding  all  that  had  occurred, 
they  still  maintained  that  they  stood  in  the  unity  of  the  Church. 
When  the  Emperor  had  announced  his  intention  of  granting  a 
Diet,  and  of  composing  the  controversies  about  religion,  no  one 
could  feel  like  declining  the  gracious  proposal.  Everyone  must 
feel  like  meeting  him  half  way  and  trying  to  gain  the  most 
favorable  decision  for  Protestantism.  Yet  the  nature  of  the 
preparations  made  by  the  Wittenberg  theologians  is  not  definitely 
known.  AVe  know  that  they  did  not  appear  in  Torgau  on  Sun- 
day, ]March  20th,  for  March  21st  the  Elector  addressed  them  an- 
other letter,  and  urged  them  to  come  to  Torgau  and  to  bring 
their  books  with  them,  as  some  things  awaited  their  attention.! 
]\Ielanchthon  was  in  Torgau  INIarch  27th,  but  Luther  did  not  go.§ 

Whether  Melanchthon  took  books  and  "articles  of  faith  and 

*De  Wette.  Luther's  Brief e,  III.,  564. 

t  Corpus  Beformatorum,  II.,  28.  See  the  Preface  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession ;  Melanchthon 's  letters  to  Camerarius,  C.  E.  II.,  119,  and  p.  280 ; 
Deus  fortunet  concilia  pacis;  and  Rrentz's  letter  to  Isenmann,  June  24, 
1.530:  "  In  ea  (Confessione)  petunt  principes,  ut  amice  controversia  com- 
ponatur,  et  pax  constituatur. "  C.  E.  II.,  12.5 ;  Virch  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Kir- 
rhengeschichte  (1888),  pp.  68-71:  "With  evident  approximation  to  the 
Catholic  Standpoint. ' ' 

t  C.  E.  II.,  33. 

§  Kostlin,  Martin  Ltither  (1883),  II.,  651;  Plitt,  Einleitung,  I.,  520,  n.  2. 


28         THE  DIET  AT  AUGSBURG  IN  THE  YEAR  1530. 

ceremonies"  with  him  to  Torgau  is  not  a  matter  of  contempora- 
neous record.  The  ripest  scholarship  can  only  say  with  Pro- 
fessor Kolde:  "A  document  with  the  title  'Torgau  Articles/ 
or  which  on  the  basis  of  contemporaneous  reports  can  with  cer- 
tainty be  shown  to  have  been  delivered  at  that  time,  we  do  not 
possess.  Hence  the  most  diverse  conjectures  have  been  promul- 
gated. Yet  the  researches  of  Engelhardt  {Zh.-Th.,  1865,  515, 
ff.)  and  especially  of  Brieger  {KircJiengeschiclitliche  Studien. 
1888,  p.  268,  ff.),  have  rendered  it  highly  probable  that  the 
much  sought  'Torgau  Articles'  are  identical  with  an  opinion 
(Gutachten)  (Forstemann's  Urkundenhuch,  I.,  68-84),  which, 
as  an  important  document,  was  taken  to  Augsburg  by  the  Elec- 
tor, and  manifestly  became  the  foundation  subsequently  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  And  this  is  not  contradicted  by  the  fact 
that  the  writing  in  question,  contrary  to  the  Elector's  order  to 
report  'on  faith  and  ceremonies,'  treats  only  of  the  latter.  For 
the  authors  remember  that  according  to  the  admission  of  their 
opponents,  even  the  doctrine  preached  in  the  Elector's  dominions, 
'is  Christian  and  comforting,  and  right  in  itself,  and  that  the 
schism  had  arisen  chiefly  on  account  of  certain  abuses,'  which 
had  been  introduced  by  the  doctrines  and  statutes  of  men,  and 
because  they  could  not  concede  that  their  doctrine  is  new,  or 
that  it  differs  from  the  genuine,  true,  evangelical  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  they,  according  to  their  own  declaration,  limited 
themselves  to  the  reasons  for  the  abolition  of  those  abuses.  They 
also  promised,  in  case  there  was  a  desire  to  know  what  else  was 
preached  in  the  Electorate,  'to  present  articles  in  which  the  en- 
tire teaching  was  embraced  in  an  orderly  way'  in  general,  also, 
a  further  elaboration  of  the  original  Gutachten,  which  had  been 
hastily  composed  and  was  intended  to  be  presented  to  the  Diet 
by  the  Elector  alone,  was  kept  in  view  from  the  beginning,  and 
was  already  resolved  upon."  * 

Indeed,  if  we  accept  the  essay  A,  given  in  Forstemann's  Ur- 
Jiundenhuch,  I.,  68-84,  and  in  Jacob's  Book  of  Concord,  II., 
75-86,  as  ^'the  Torgau  Articles,"  or  as  a  part  of  the  same,  then 
it  becomes  at  once  obviously  certain  that  doctrinal  articles  were 
not  presented  to  the  Elector  at  Torgau  in  answer  to  his  requisi= 
tion,  for  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  that  the  Wittenberg  theo- 
logians would  say  in  that  essay:  "The  things  thus  far  stated 
have  reference  to  external  ordinances  and  customs,"  and  promise 
"to  give  articles  on  the  entire  Christian  doctrine  in  answer  to 

*  Article,  Augsburger  BeTceiintnin  in  H eal-E ncyclopiidic ,  IT.,  243.  See 
Kokle,  Angsburgische  Konfession,  p.  2. 


THE    DIET    AT    AUGSBURG    IN    THE    YEAR    1530.  29 

a  desire,  should  it  be  made,"  and  then,  at  the  same  time,  'present 
articles  on  doctrine.  Yet  the  question  cannot  be  decided  abso- 
lutely,* though  the  fact,  now  universally  recognized,  that  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  in  its  original  form — Apology  it  was  at 
first  called — did  not  contain  articles  of  faith,t  makes  it  as  good 
as  certain  that  articles  of  faith  were  not  sent  to  Torgau  by  the 
Wittenberg  theologians  as  a  part  of  their  response  to  the  Elec- 
tor's requisition.  And  as  for  the  statement  made  by  some  of 
the  older  historians  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, J  viz.,  that  "be- 
fore the  journey  to  Augsburg  began,  Luther  composed  seventeen 
articles,"  which  are  "the  archetype  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion,"— such  statement,  both  as  regards  the  chronology  and  the 
purpose  of  the  Schwabach  Articles,  is  purely  gratuitous,  since 
we  know  that  the  seventeen  Schwabach  Articles,  which  are  "the 
archetype"  of  the  first  seventeen  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, were  neither  composed  nor  even  revised  in  view  of  the 
proposed  Diet,  as  we  learn  from  Luther's  own  words  in  the 
Preface  to  his  published  edition  of  those  Articles.  He  says : 
"Seventeen  articles  have  lately  been  published  under  my  name 
with  a  title  that  indicates  that  I  meant  to  lay  the  same  before 
the  present  Diet.  Of  such  a  thing  I  never  had  a  thought.  It 
is  true  that  I  helped  to  compose  such  articles,  for  they  were  not 
composed  by  me  alone,  but  not  on  account  of  the  Papists,  nor  to 
lay  before  this  Diet.  It  is  very  well  known  why  they  were  com- 
posed. I  had  not  even  intended  that  they  should  be  published, 
much  less  that  they  should  go  out  with  such  a  title  under  my 
name.  And  he  who  did  it  knows  very  well  that  I  had  neither 
commanded  nor  wished  it.  Not  that  I  shun  the  light,  or  think 
that  such  articles  are  not  right.  They  are  too  good  and  too 
precious  to  be  used  in  negotiations  with  the  Papists.  For  what 
do  they  care  about  such  beautiful,  holy,  superb  articles  ? "  § 
This  Preface  is  decisive  against  the  supposition  that  the  Schwa- 

*  See  Brieger,  KirchengescMclitUche  Studien,  p.  311. 

t  Die  Aelteste  Bedalction  der  Augsb.  Konf.   Kolde. 

i  Coelestin,  pp.  25  et  seqq.   J.  J.  Miiller,  p.  441.    Chytr^ns,  Historia,  p.  18. 

§  Erlangen  edition  of  Luther's  Worls,  vol.  XXIV.,  337.  These  seventeen 
articles,  known  as  the  Schwabach  Articles,  were  published  early  in  the  year 
1530  by  Hans  Bern,  of  Coburg,  with  the  title:  "  The  Confession  of  Martin 
Luther  composed  in  Seventeen  Articles  to  be  laid  before  the  present  Diet  at 
Augsburg."  Misled  by  the  title,  Conrad  Wimpina,  John  Mensing,  Wolfgang 
Eoderfer  and  Eupert  Elgersma,  Catholic  theologians  at  Augsburg,  wrote  a 
refutation  of  the  articles.  Thereupon  Luther,  who  was  residing  in  the 
castle  at  Coburg,  wrote  a  Preface  (from  which  we  have  just  quoted)  to 
these  seventeen  articles  and  had  the  whole  printed  at  Wittenberg  under  the 
title:  "  Martin  Luther's  Reply  to  the  Howl  of  Certain  Papists."  These 
articles,  as  published  by  Luther,  reached  Augsburg  in  May,  as  we  learn  from 
a  letter  written  by  Jacob  Sturm  to  Zwingli.    Zwinglis  Werle,  VIIL,  459. 


30  THE    DIET   AT    AUGSBURG    IN    THE    YEAR    1530. 

bach  Articles  were  sent  to  Torpau  as  a  part  of  the  preparations 
for  the  Diet.  It  was  subsequent  exigencies,  as  will  be  shown 
hereafter,  which  called  the  seventeen  Schwabach  Articles  into 
requisition,  first,  as  the  Elector  of  Saxony's  Confession  of  Faith, 
and  secondly,  as  the  hasis  of  the  first  seventeen  articles  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession. 

2.  Torgau  Articles. 
But  it  is  now  the  conclusion  of  scholars  and  specialists  in  this 
field  of  Reformation  history  that,  between  jMarch  14th  and  27th, 
certain  articles  on  abuses,  now  called  "Torgau  Articles,"  were 
composed  by  Melanchthon,*  and  were  subsequently,  possibly  not 
before  April  3d,  taken  to  Torgau,  and  for  that  reason  called 
"Torgau  Articles."  But  of  contemporaneous  documentary  proof 
of  this  conclusion,  and  of  the  veritable  existence  of  "Torgau 
Articles,"  there  is  not  a  line  knoAvn  to  historians.  That  is, 
there  does  not  exist  a  line,  or  even  a  word  from  the  times,  which 
tells  us  that  the  Wittenberg  theologians  wrote  articles  on  "ex- 
ternal ceremonies, ' '  March  14th  to  27th,  and  sent  or  carried  them 
to  Torgau;  nor  have  we  any  document  from  the  times  inscribed 
Torgau  Articles.  It  is  only  highly  probable,  not  historically  and 
demonstratively  certain,  that  the  essay  consisting  of  several  parts, 
and  discussing  several  subjects,  discovered  by  Karl  Edward 
Forstemann  at  Weimar,!  and  published  by  him  in  his  Urkun- 

*  See  Engelhardt  in  Niedner's  Zeitschrift,  1865,  pp.  .515-629,  and  especi- 
ally Brieger's  learned  and  exceedingly  acute  essay  in  Kirchengeschiclitliclie 
Studien,  1888,  pp.  268-320.  Also  The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  1897,  pp.  301 
et  seqq.  For  the  Refutation  of  the»Papists,  and  Luther's  Reply,  see  St. 
Louis  edition  of  Luther's  Schriften,  vol.  XVI.,  638  et  seqq. 

t  At  the  same  time  and  place  Forstemann  discovered  other  essays,  which 
he  published  in  the  Urkundenbuch,  all  arranged  in  the  order  of  the  alphabet 
from  A  to  F.  But  the  order  in  which  these  essays  exist  in  the  copy,  that  is, 
not  in  the  hand  of  their  author  or  authors,  is  D  A  B  E  F  C.  Forstemann 
introduced  the  entire  list  with  the  title:  Der  nach  Torgau  berufenen  Witteu- 
berger  Gelehrten  Bedenken  iiber  die  streitigen  Artikel.  .Jacobs  has  given 
these  articles  in  English  in-  the  same  order,  and  has  subtitled  them :  The 
Torgau  Articles.  Boo}:,  of  Concord,  XL,  pp.  75-98.  But  neither  Forste- 
mann nor  Jacobs  seems  to  have  examined  these  articles  critically.  Indeed, 
the  latter  seems  to  have  followed  the  former  implicitly  in  accepting  these 
articles  taken  altogether  as  the  Torgau  Articles  and  has  named  them  The 
Foundation  of  the  Articles  on  Abuses.  He  has  also  accepted  the  theory,  as 
Krauth  had  already  done  (Conservative  lie  formation,  p.  223),  propounded 
by  Forstemann,  that  the  Preface  (exordium)  spoken  of  by  Melanchthon  in 
his  letter  to  Luther,  May  4th  (C.  R.  II.,  39),  is  the  whole  first  or  doctrinal 
part  of  the  Confession.  But  long  ago  Bretschneider  (C.  R.  IV.,  999  et 
secjq.)  and  Plitt  (Einleitwig  in  die  Augustana,  I.,  523)  gave  ample  reasons 
for  the  rejection  of  this  theory  about  the  Preface.  And  now  comes  Die 
aelteste  HedaMion  der  Augsburger  Konfession,  which  explodes  the  theory 
forever,  for  it  contains  the  "  long  and  rhetorical  preface  "  spoken  of  by 
Melanchthon. J 

J:  See  T/ie  Lulhpron  QiiarfiTli/,  Jauuary,  1907,  pp.  44  et  seqq. 


THE  DIET  AT  AUGSBURG  IN  THE  YEAR  1530.         31 

denbuch  zu  der  Geschichtc  des  Reichstags  zu  Augsburg  im  Jahre 
1530,  pp.   68-84,  was  written  by  Melanehthon  at  Wittenberg, 
Mai'ch  14th  to  27th,  carried  to  Torgan,  and  thence  to  Augsburg' 
and  used  finally  in  composing  the  second  part  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.    The  data  now  known  to  exist  will  not  allow  more 
definite  affirmations  in  regard  to   a  basis  of  the   Articles  on 
Abuses.   Hence  no  competent  scholar  would  affirm  so  confidently 
of  these  essays  as  Forstemann  did:    "That  incontestably  they 
were  written  upon  order  of  the  Elector  by  the  Wittenberg  theo- 
logians, and  that  they  are  to  be  considered  as  without  doul)t  the 
foundation  of  the  second  part  of  the  Augsburg  Confession." 
Criticism,  conducted  with  ample  learning  and  with  great  acute- 
ness    by    Bretschneider,    Plitt,    Engelhardt,    Knaake,    Brieger, 
Kolde,*  has  reached  the  conclusion  that  all  the  essays  in  question 
must  be  excluded  from  consideration  except  A,  and  Brieger  has 
summed  up  the  result  of  the  discussions  in  these  words:    "As 
a  result  of  our  comparison  we  may  set  it  down  that  A  in  fact 
served  as  preparatory  work  for  the  Angustana.    The  manner 
in  which  it  is  employed  in  Article  25,  and  in  individual  expres- 
sions of  23  and  24  and  elsewhere,  leave  no  doubt  in  regard  to 
a  perfectly  demonstrable  relationship,  so  that  even  those  articles 
in  which  we  are  not  led  necessarily  to  employ  A,  this  essay  has,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  furnished  the  basis  for  the  further  elabora- 
tion. ' '  t    Bretschneider,  Plitt,  Virch  and  Kolde  agree  with  this 
conclusion,  though  the  three  first  named  think  that  the  essay  was 
written  at  Coburg,  and  Kolde  has  taken  it  into  his  Augsburg 
Confession  as  an  appendix  under  the  title  :  The  T  organ  Art  ides. % 
But  the  Essay  A,  whether  it  arose  at  Wittenberg  or  at  Coburg, 
makes  it  perfectly  clear  that   it  was  not  the  intention  of  the 
writer  to  exhibit  doctrinal  articles  before  the  Diet.    It  contains 
not  a  single  article  of  doctrine.   It  promises  a  "long  and  rhetor- 
ical preface,"  and  then  discusses  The  Doctrines  and  Ordinances 
of  Men,  The  Marriage  of  Priests,  Both.  Forms,  The  Mass,  Con- 
fession, The   Worship  of  Saints,  German  Singing.    The  intro- 
duction is  apologetic  in  character.    Its  aim  is  to  vindicate  "his 
Electoral  Grace"  against  the  charge  of  "dispensing  with  all 
divine  service,  and  of  introducing  a  heathenish,  dissolute  mode 

*  See  C.  E.  IV.,  973-4;  xi.it  b  ^,/, 
(1865),  pp.  550  et  seqq. ;  Knaake's  Lh 
268  et  seqq.    Real  Encyc,  II.,  243; 
pp.  303  et  seqq. 

t  KirchengescMcMliche  Studien,  p.  305. 

t  Die  Augshiirgische  Eonfession,  pp.  2  and  128  et  seqq. 


32  THE    DIET    AT   AUGSBURG    IN    THE    YEAR    1530. 

of  life  and  insubordination,  from  whicli  the  destruction  of  all 
Christendom  results."  It  declares  that  his  Electoral  Grace  has 
always  been  inclined  to  peace  and  has  helped  to  maintain  peace. 
It  then  says :  "To  this  effect  it  is  well  to  place  first  a  long  and 
rhetorical  preface. ' '  It  says  further  that  ' '  his  Electoral  Grace ' ' 
is  making  provision  for  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  and  that 
"every  one,  even  among  the  adversaries,  must  acknowledge  that 
this  doctrine,  which  is  taught  and  treated,  is  Christian  and  com= 
f orting ' ' ;  and  finally :  ' '  The  dissension  is  now  especially  con- 
cerning abuses,  which  have  been  introduced  by  human  teach- 
ing and  statutes,  of  which  we  will  report  in  order,  and  will  in- 
dicate for  what  reason  my  lord  is  induced  to  cause  certain 
abuses  to  be  abated. ' ' 

And  if  we  analyze  the  introduction  to  these  articles  we  find : 

1.  It  uses  throughout  the  first  person  singular,  as  "my  lord," 
not  o»r  lord,  when  speaking  of  the  Elector.  This  shows  that  the 
essay  is  the  production  of  one  man,  not  the  joint  composition 
of  several. 

2.  It  calls  the  adversaries  themselves  to  witness  to  the  purity 
of  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  Electoral  dominions. 

3.  It  declares  that  the  dissension  has  arisen  principally  on 
account  of  abuses. 

4.  It  shows  that  the  essay  was  written  for  the  Elector  alone, 
and  consequently  that  it  is  Saxon  in  origin,  and  was  intended 
to  vindicate  the  Elector  before  the  Diet. 

And  now  when  we  turn  to  the  Articles,  we  find  that  not  one  of 
them  discusses  a  doctrine.  They  all  treat  of  "human  ordinances 
which  cannot  be  observed  without  sin."  The  titles  borne  by 
these  articles  are  in  some  instances  identical,  and  in  others  nearly 
identical,  with  the  titles  given  to  the  Articles  on  Abuses  in  Me\- 
anchthon's  editio  'principes,  Latin  and  German,  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  which  fact  forms  a  powerful  argument  in  favor  of 
the  supposition  that  this  essay  was  used  in  composing  the  second 
part  of  the  Confession,  and  has  its  parallel  in  the  fact  that  the 
doctrinal  articles  are  simply  numhered  just  as  is  the  case  in  the 
Schwabach  Articles,  which  form  the  basis,  in  the  main,  of  those 
doctrinal  articles.  The  coincidence  cannot  be  regarded  as  acci- 
dental in  either  case.* 

"We  may,  therefore,  fairly  conclude  that  in  essay  A  we  have 
the  Torgau  Articles,  that  is,  the  articles  which  were  delivered  to 

*  The  same  two-fold  parallelism  meets  ns  already  in  Die  aelteste  Eed- 
altioii  der  Augsburger  Konfession.    Kolde. 


THE    DIET    AT    AUGSBURG    IN    THE    YEAR    1530.  33 

the  Elector  of  Saxony  in  answer  to  his  requisition  of  ]\Iarch  14th, 
and  which  were  used  in  composing  Article  XXI.  and  the  Articles 
on  Abuses,  now  c^ntained  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  And 
when  we  come  to  compare  the  two  sets  of  articles  we  find  no 
difficulty  in  reaching  the  conchision  that  the  first  part  of  Ar- 
ticle XXI.  of  the  Confession  has  its  prototype  in  the  article  Of 
the  Invocation  of  Saints,  in  the  essay.  The  same  may  be  said  of 
Article  XXII.,  in  its  correspondence  with  the  article  Of  Both 
Forms,  in  the  essay,  and  likewise  of  Article  XXIII.,  as  compared 
with  the  one  of  corresponding  title  in  the  essay,  except  that 
Article  XXIII.  is  expanded  greatly  beyond  the  size  of  its  proto- 
type. There  is  resemblance  also  in  Article  XXIV.  to  the  article 
Of  the  Mass,  in  the  essay,  though  by  no  means  is  there  identity 
in  subject-matter,  nor  in  the  manner  of  treatment.  The  agree- 
ment between  Article  XXV.,  Of  Confession,  in  the  Augustana, 
and  the  article  of  the  same  title  in  the  essay,  is  so  strik- 
ing as  to  make  it  almost  certain  that  the  latter  is  the  an- 
tecedent, or  first  draft,  of  the  former.  Article  XXVI.,  of  the 
Confession,  Of  the  Distinction  of  Meats,  has  no  antecedent  in 
title  in  the  essay.  It  contains  a  few  forms  of  statement  that  may 
be  traced  to  the  first  article  in  the  essay.  But  there  is  no  neces- 
sary relation  between  the  two.  In  Article  XXVII.,  of  the  Confes- 
sion, Of  Monastic  Voivs,  there  are  points  of  agreement  with  the 
article  De  Votis,  Von  Closter  lehen,  in  the  essay,  but  the  former 
contains  about  four  times  as  much  matter  as  does  the  latter. 
Article  XXVIII.,  Of  the  Power  of  the  Bishops,  is  the  longest  in 
the  Confession.  It  covers  a  little  more  than  eleven  pages  in  the 
German  editio  princeps,  as  over  against  the  article  of  similar 
title  in  the  essay,  which  contains  only  425  words.  Brieger  says 
that  Article  XXVIII.  of  the  Confession  contains  not  a  trace  from 
A.  Engelhardt  says  that  only  the  fundamental  thought  is  the 
same,  but  that  the  entire  treatment  is  different.  Brieger  declares 
that  "the  first  sketch  of  Melanchthon 's  twenty-eighth  article  is 
found  in  C,"  whose  first  article  is  entitled:  Von  vermoge  der 
Schhissel.  De  potestate  clavium.  Already  Bretschneider  had 
expressed  the  same  opinion  and  had  been  followed  by  Engel- 
hardt.* Kolde  regards  it  as  without  doubt  that  here  in  C  we 
have  the  original  of  Article  XXVIII.,  of  which  we  have  three  dif- 
ferent recensions:  that  in  Forstemann,  that  in  The  Oldest  Be- 

*  C.  R.  IV.,  1002.  Bretschneider  regards  C  as  the  work  of  which  Mel- 
anchthon writes  to  Luther,  May  22  (1530)  :  Nunc  de  potestate  clavium  etiam 
disputo.  C.  R.  II.,  60.  Niedner's  Zeitschrift  (1856),  pp.  562-564.  Kirchen- 
gescMcMUche  Studien,  p.  286. 


34  THE    DIET   AT   AUGSBURG    IN    THE    YEAR    1530. 

daction,  and  that  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.*  Thus  it  becomes 
morally,  though  not  demonstrably,  certain  that  we  have  certain 
articles  on  "external  ceremonies"  and  abuses,  in  other  words, 
"Tojgau  Articles,"  which  were  used  by  Melanchthon  in  com- 
posing the  second  part  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Whether 
these  articles  were  all  written  at  Wittenberg,  March  14th  to  27th, 
or  some  of  them  at  Wittenberg  and  others  at  Augsburg,f  is  not  a 
matter  of  great  interest.  But  they  were  used  by  Melanchthon 
with  such  complete  independence,  both  in  matter  and  in  man- 
ner, that  after  decades  of  the  most  critical  examination  and 
learned  inquiry  it  can  be  only  said:  "A  document  bearing  the 
title  'Torgau  Articles,'  or  one  which  on  the  ground  of  contem- 
poraneous reports  can  with  complete  certainty  be  designated  as 
that  delivered  at  that  time,  we  do  not  possess.  Hence  the  most 
diverse  views  have  been  published.  Yet  the  researches  of  Engel- 
hardt  {Niedner's  Zeitschrift,  1865,  pp.  500  et  seqq.),  and  espe- 
cially those  of  Theodore  Brieger  {Kirchengesclrichtliche  Studien, 
Leipzig,  1888,  pp.  268  et  seqq.),  have  rendered  it  in  the  highest 
degree  probable  that  the  much-sought  'Torgau  Articles'  are 
identical  with  a  Gutachten  (Forstemann,  UrkundenhucU,  I.,  pp. 
68-84;  Theodore  Kolde,  Augshurgische  Konfession,  p.  128  et 
seqq. ) ,  which,  as  an  important  document,  was  taken  along  by  the 
Elector  to  Augsburg,  and  which  became  the  foundation  of  the 
subsequent  Confession. "  J 

But  now  the  question  arises.  Who  is  the  author  of  this  Gut- 
achten, that  is,  of  the  Essay  A?  Bretschneider,  Zockler,  Cali- 
nich,  Plitt,  Knaake,  Virch,  Brieger  and  Loofs  unite  in  excluding 
Luther.  Brieger  says:  "Luther  is  excluded  by  reason  of  the 
manner  in  which  he  is  spoken  of."§  He  alludes  to  the  passage 
under  Of  Ordination:  "It  is  to  be  apprehended  that  not  many' 
Dr.  Martins  will  come  after  this  time,  who  would  control  these 
important  matters  with  such  grace,  and  would  avoid  false  doc- 
trine and  war."  II  Knaake  declares  that  Luther's  part  in  the 
preparation  for  the  Augsburg  Confession  must  be  confined  to  tlie 
Marburg  and  the  Schwabach  Artieles.*[[  Loofs  says:    "Not  com- 

*  Die  Aelteste  BedaMion  der  Augsburger  Konfession,  pp.  63  et  seqq. 

•f-  Brieger  says :  ' '  Nothing  indicates  that  this  essay  was  presented  at 
Torgau."  Engelhardt  agrees  with  Bretschneider;  Plitt  and  Kolde  unite 
in  excluding  C  from  the  number  of  the  ' '  Torgau  Articles. ' ' 

t  Kolde  in  Beal-E)icyclopadie,^  II.,  p.  243.  Article:  Augsburger  Belennt- 
nis. 

?  Kirchengeschiditliche  Studien,  p.  310. 

II  Jacobs'  Bool'  of  Concord,  II.,  p.  83. 

^Luther's  Antheil  in  der  Augshurgischen  Confession,  pp.  20-25. 


THE    DIET   AT    AUGSBURG    IN    THE    YEAR    1530.  35 

posed  by  Luther."  *  Brieger,  after  excluding  Luther,  naturally 
turns  to  ]\relanehthon,  though  he  does  not  regard  him  as  the  sole 
author,  but  thinks  that  he  received  suggestions  from  the  other 
Wittenberg  theologians,  especially  from  Luther  and  Jonas.  ' '  Yet 
these  are  only  conjectures. ' '  f  Calinich,  after  declaring  that 
Essay  A  proceeded  from  Melanchthon,  says:  "The  Essay  A 
is  not  from  Luther. "  | 

Considering  the  well-known  fact  that  IMelanchthon  was  gen- 
erally, if  not  always,  chosen  as  penman  in  the  preparation  of 
judgments  and  opinions  to  be  delivered  by  the  Wittenberg  theo- 
logians, we  will  probably  strike  the  truth  by  concluding  that  he 
wrote  the  "Torgau  Articles"  after  consultation  with  Luther, 
Jonas  and  Bugenhagen,  and  that  the  said  articles  were  carried 
to  Torgau  as  a  common  answer  to  the  Elector's  requisition  of 
]\Iarch  14th. 

*  BogmengeschicJite,  4th  ed.,  p.  818. 

t  KirchengescMcMliclw  Studien,  p.  310. 

t  Luther  und  die  Augshurgisclie  Confession,  p.  28. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE    JOURNEY    TO    AUGSBURG. 

April  3,  1530,  Luther,  Melanchtlion  and  Jonas  left  Witten- 
berg for  Torgau.  The  following  day  the  electoral  train,  con- 
sisting of  one  hundred  and  sixty  persons,  set  out  for  Augsburg.* 
Among  these  were  three  princes,  four  counts  and  lords,  seven 
noble  counsellors,  four  learned  counsellors,  seven  knights,  sev- 
enty nobles  and  five  theologians.f  The  rest  were  servants.  They 
took  with  them  three  boxes  containing  civil  and  religious  docu- 
ments, among  which,  in  all  probability,  were  the  Marburg  Ar- 
ticles and  the  Schwabach  Articles,  and  one  bearing  the  title: 
Judgment  of  the  Learned  at  Wittenberg,  which  is  to  he  presented 
to  the  Emperor  in  regard  to  ceremonies  and  things  connected 
therewith,  which  is  generally  supposed  to  be  the  Torgau  Ar- 
ticles.$  The  train  proceeded  via  Grimma,  Altenburg  and  Isen- 
burg  to  Weimar,  which  was  reached  on  Saturday,  the  9th, 
where  the  Elector  was  met  by  a  messenger  from  Niirnberg,  who 
announced  that  the  Emperor  was  on  his  way  to  Germany  and 
would  certainly  appear  at  Augsburg.  §  On  Palm  Sunday,  Luther 
preached  at  Weimar,  and  the  Elector  and  some  of  his  train  par- 
took of  the  Lord's  Supper. i|  After  resting  a  couple  of  days  the 
party  turned  southward,  and,  passing  through  Grafenthal  and 
Neustadtlein,  entered  Coburg,  on  the  southernmost  limit  of  the 
Elector's  dominion,  on  Good  Friday,  April  15th.  "During  the 
Easter  festival  Luther  preached,  as  he  is  reported  to  have  done 
in  Weimar  and  Grafenthal.  He  made  scarcely  any  reference 
to  questions  of  the  day.  He  only  declaimed  most  violently  against 
the  fanatics  who,  if  they  did  not  believe  in  the  word  of  the  sacra- 
ment, also  could  not  believe  on  Christ  the  Son  of  God;  as  if  it 
sufficed  to  warn  the  Elector  once  more  against  any  association 
with  the  sacramentarians. ' '  ^ 

*  Seckendorf,  Historia  Luther anismi,  TI.,  152. 
t  For  names,  see  J.  J.  Miiller,  Historie,  pp.  455-6. 

I  See  Catalogue  in  Forstemann,  I.,  134-8. 
§  Jonas,  Brief tcedisel,  I.,  145. 

II  Schirrmacher,  Brief e  xmd  Akten,  p.  372. 
TI  Kolde,  Martin  Luther,  II.,  328. 

(36) 


THE    JOURNEY    TO   AUGSBURG.  37 

j^^  '  1.  Luther  Left  at  Cohurg. 
The  Electoral  party  remained  at  Cobnrg  until  April  23d,  since 
some  things  had  to  be  arranged  in  regard  to  the  continuance  of 
the  journey,  and  especially  in  regard  to  Luther.  Already,  April 
7th,  the  Elector  had  written  from  Isenburg  to  Niirnberg  and  had 
requested  that  renowned  imperial  city  to  receive  Luther  and  to 
furnish  him  protection  during  the  Diet,  as  he  (the  Elector) 
wished  to  have  him  in  a  place  of  safety,  and,  for  the  purpose  of 
consultation,  nearer  at  hand  "than  in  our  land,"*  that  is,  in 
Coburg.  As  the  Elector  found  no  answer  to  his  letter  awaiting 
him  at  Coburg,  he  wrote  again,  April  15th,  and  repeated  the  re- 
quest of  April  7th.  But  the  next  day,  April  16th,  Michael  von 
Kaden  came  to  Coburg  to  say  that,  April  13th,  the  Nurnberg 
Senate  had  decided  not  to  receive  Luther,  nor  to  furnish  him 
with  a  safe-conduct.f  This  piece  of  information  at  once  deter- 
mined the  place  of  Luther's  residence  during  the  Diet.!  It  had 
been  the  Elector's  intention,  as  shown  in  the  correspondence,  to 
take  Luther  as  far  as  Nurnberg,  or  within  about  one  hundred 
miles  of  Augsburg,  in  order  that,  as  "opportunity  offered," 
he  might  consult  him  in  the  transactions  of  the  Diet.  But  such 
intention  miscarrying,  because  of  the  attitude  of  the  Niirn- 
bergers,  it  was  now  decided  to  leave,  Luther  at  Coburg.  Accord- 
ingly, on  the  morning  of  April  23d,  about  four  o'clock,  he  was 
conveyed  to  the  castle,  which  stands  five  hundred  feet  above  the 
city  and  commands  a  wide  prospect  over  Thuringian  hills  and 
valleys,  and  is  so  strong,  by  reason  of  its  isolation  and  of  its 
massive  walls,  that  it  resisted  all  the  efforts  of  Wallenstein  to 
capture  it  during  the  Thirty  Years'  War.  It  was  the  best  that 
;  could  be  done  under  the  circumstances.  Luther  was  under  the 
j  excommunication  of  the  Pope  and  under  the  ban  of  the  Empire. 
It  was  not  expedient  to  take  him  to  Augsburg.  He  was  a  subject 
for  lawful  arrest.  In  all  probability  he  would  have  been  assas- 
sinated on  the  spot.  But  while  it  is  documentarily  certain  that 
the  Elector  and  his  counsellors  wanted  Luther  nearer  than  Co- 
burg, it  is  highly  probable  that  they  did  not  want  him  with  them 
at  Augsburg.    At  least,  we  meet  with  no  expression  o:^  desire  to 

*  Original  given  by  Kolde  in  EircJiengeschichtliche  Studien,  pp.  155-7. 

t  Original  in  Kolde 's  Analecta  LutJierana,  p.  119. 

t  Von  Kaden  delivered  this  information  viva  voce,  but  he  carried  with 
him  an  instruction  written  by  Lazarus  Spengler,  which  gives  many  reasons 
why  Luther  could  not  be  received  at  Nurnberg.  Original  given  by  Kolde  in 
Eirchengeschichtliche  Studien,  pp.  257  et  seqq.  Very  justly  does  Kolde 
say:  "The  Niirnbergers  did  not  have  the  steadfastness  and  the  courage 
to  expose  themselves  to  danger." 


38  THE   JOURNEY   TO   AUGSBURG. 

have  him  at  Augsburg,  and  learn  of  no  effort  having  been  made 
to  remove  the  obstacles  that  stood  in  the  way  of  his  going  thither. 
There  were,  on  the  contrary,  two  personal  reasons  why  Luther 
would  have  been  persona  non  grata  at  Augsburg.  He  had  come 
to  be  "hated"  by  the  Electoral  Prince  John  Frederick,  who 
ascribed  to  Luther's  influence  much  of  the  resolute  opposition 
shown  by  the  Elector  to  the  Emperor,*  His  presence  at  Augs- 
,  burg  would  have  been  intensely  exasperating  to  the  Romanists, 
and  would  have  rendered  negotiations  more  difficult.  He  was 
enthusiastic  in  defense  of  his  cause,  uncompromising  in  spirit, 
and  violent  in  discussion.  It  would  have  been  highly  impolitic 
on  the  part  of  the  Elector,  and  very  hazardous  to  his  expressed 
purposes  of  conciliation  and  fellowship  with  the  opposite  party, 
to  take  Luther  to  Augsburg.  It  would  have  been  equivalent  to 
a  declaration  of  war.  Hence  one  can  easily  see  how  the  entire 
cause  of  Protestantism,  which  was  now  on  trial,  would  have  been 
brought  into  greater  peril  by  allowing  Luther  to  appear  at  the 
Diet.  This  must  have  been  foreseen  by  the  Elector  and  his 
counsellors. 

Hence,  after  reading  all  the  known  contemporaneous  docu-* 
ments  relating  to  the  detention  of  Luther  at  Coburg,  we  cannot 
resist  the  conclusion  that,  much  as  the  Elector  desired  to  have 
Luther  as  near  as  possible  for  consultation,  he  did  not  desire  to 
have  him  at  Augsburg  to  assist  in  the  pending  negotiations.  Such 
also,  essentially,  is  the  conclusion  expressed  or  intimated 
by  not  a  few  historian's  who  cannot  be  justly  accused  of 
tendenz,  nor  of  prejudices,  nor  of  insufficient  information ;  f  and 
such  a  conclusion  is  in  no  sense  contradicted  by  Luther 's  declara- 
tion :  ■' '  It  was  not  safe  to  take  me  to  Augsburg, ' '  $  nor  by  his 
expressions  of  impatience  with  his  detention  at  Coburg.  It  was 
not  Luther's  fault  that  he  was  not  taken  to  Augsburg.  The 
responsibility  in  the  matter  rests  with  the  Elector,  who  had  to 

*  See  Melanchthon 's  letter  to  Luther,  May  22d,  in  C.  R.,  II.  61.  St.  Louis 
edition,  Luther's  Schriften,  XVI.,  689,  note  3.  An  old  translator  of  Mel- 
anchthon 's  letter  says :  ' '  Denn  er  i^t  nun  niemand  ungnadiger  als  eueh. ' ' 
Some  have  interpreted  this  hating  as  referring  to  Philip  of  Hesse.  The 
context  will  not  sustain  such  an  interpretation. 

t  MatheSins  says :  ' '  For  great  and  important  reasons  Doctor  Luther 
was  left  at  this  castle  (Coburg),  lest  the  enemy  should  be  rendered  more 
bitter  by  his  presence,  and  the  chief  cause  should  be  brought  into  dis- 
credit." Eighth  Sermon.  See  Pfaff  Geschichte  des  Augsh.  Glaubenshelc. 
I.,  p.  198;  Weber,  Krit.  GescJi.  A.  C,  I.,  p.  27;  Strang,  Martin  Luther,  p. 
603;  Facius,  Geschichte  A.  C,  p.  42;  Niedner's  Zeitschrift  (1865),  p.  570; 
Koehler,  Journeys  of  Luther,  p.  284;  Kahnis,  Dogmatil',  II.,  423;  "Per- 
sonally too  exasperating." 

t  De  Wette,  Luther's  Brief e,  IV.,  p.  27. 


THE   JOUKNEY    TO   AUGSBURG.  39 

consider  the  peaceful  issue  of  the  Diet,  as  Avell  as  Luther's  per- 
sonal safety. 

At  all  events,  the  Elector  ordered  Luther  to  remain  at  Coburg. 
Michael  von  Kaden  explained  to  him,  ''briefly  and  very  gently," 
the  reasons  why  he  could  not  be  taken  to  Niirnberg;  and  von 
Kaden  reports  that  Luther  declared  to  him  that  his  "original 
counsel  had  been  that  he  be  left  at  Wittenberg,  since  he  did  not 
believe  that  anything  more  would  be  accomplished  at  the  pending 
Diet  than  had  been  accomplished  at  former  ones. ' '  * 

2.  The  Journey  Continued. 
April  22d,  the  Elector  received  a  letter  from  the  Emperor  in 
which  the  latter  declared  that  he  would  certainly  reach  Augsburg 
the  last  of  the  month.  The  next  day  the  Elector  and  his  party 
left  Coburg,  and,  proceeding  via  Bamberg  and  Niirnberg,  reached 
their  destination  May  2d.  Luther  was  safe  in  the  castle  at  Co- 
burg. Yet  his  heart  and  his  prayers  went  with  his  friends  to 
the  scene  of  danger  and  of  testimony.  Even  on  the  first  day  of 
h«s  residence  in  the  castle,  he  wrote  three  letters,  one  to  each  of 
his  three  friends,  Melanchthon,  Jonas  and  Spalatin;  but  he 
makes  no  reference  to  the  "Apology"  and  no  serious  reference 
to  the  Diet.f  On  the  same  day,  namely,  April  23d,  he  wrote  to 
Winceslaus  Link :  "  *  "  We  are  sitting  here  at  Coburg,  uncertain 
about  the  Diet  and  the  coming  of  the  Emperor.  Perhaps  you 
have  more  accurate  information.  My  companions  have  gone  to 
Augsburg,  but  the  Prince  wants  me  to  stay  here.  You  will  see 
them,  Philip,  Jonas,  Eisleben  and  Spalatin,  in  case  the  Diet  is 
held."  Also,  on  the  same  day,  to  Eoban  Hess  of  Niirnberg: 
' '  I  send  you  four  living,  speaking,  most  eloquent  epistles.  Gladly 
would  I  have  been  the  fifth,  but  one  said  to  me,  Keep  silent,  you 
have  a  bad  voice."  %  There  is  no  mistaking  the  meaning  of  this 
last  sentence.  Somebody,  perhaps  the  Electoral  Prince  John 
Frederick,  perhaps  one  of  the  electoral  counsellors,  had  expressed 

*  See  von  Kaden 's  official  report  to  the  Niirnberg  Senate  in  Kirchen- 
gescMclitUche  Studien,  p.  263.  Von  Kaden  says  inter  alia:  "I  think  mj 
gracious  lord,  the  Elector,  will  send  Doctor  Martin  back  to  Wittenberg. ' '  It 
is  evident  that  neither  von  Kaden  nor  the  Elector  gave  Luther  all  the 
reasons  why  he  could  not  be  taken  further,  for  April  18th  he  wrote  to  Nich- 
olas Hausmann:  "I  am  ordered  by  the  Prince,  while  others  go  to  the 
Diet,  to  remain  at  Coburg,  nescio  qua  de  causa.  Thus  all  things  are  uncer- 
tain from  day  to  day. ' '  De  Wette,  IV.,  p.  1.  Certainly  the  Elector  had  not 
been  explicit.  See  Kolde.  Eircheng.  Studien,  p.  225,  and  Rinn,  Die  Entsteh- 
ung  der  A.  C,  p.  17. 

tDe  Wette,  Luther's  Brief e.  IV.,  2,  3,  4,  12.  For  the  correct  date  of 
these  letters  see  Enders,  Dr.  Martin  Luther's  Briefwechsel,  VII.,  304. 

t  De  Wette,  IV.,  6. 


40  THE   JOURNEY    TO    AUGSBURG. 

an  unwillingness  to  have  Luther  go  to  Augsburg,  because  his 
person  would  be  very  unacceptable  to  the  opposite  party.  The 
explanation  given  by  Engelhardt  is  as  charitable  as  the  facts 
will  allow:  "The  meaning  of  the  expression  is  not  that  they 
did  not  like  his  faith  and  his  dogmatic  views,  but  that  they  did 
not  think  him  possessed  of  such  gentleness  and  suavity  as  the 
proposed  work  of  peace  required.  This,  to  be  sure,  was  a  second 
reason  why  the  counsellors  of  the  Elector  agreed  to  leave  him 
behind,  but  it  was  subordinate  and  entirely  unessential  for  the 
question  of  theology. ' '  * 

r  There  is  no  proof  that  Luther  was  to  be  entirely  ignored  in 
the  transactions  of  the  Diet,  though  there  is  abundant  reason 
for  his  complaint  that  he  was  neglected  by  his  brethren  at  Augs- 
burg, and  it  is  certain,  as  will  be  hereafter  shown,  that  he  exerted 
little  or  no  influence  on  the  composition  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, or  on  his  party,  until  long  after  the  Confession  had  been 
j  delivered  to  the  Emperor.  But  that  he  should  be  kept  from 
Augsburg,  because  of  his  impetuosity,  and  because  of  his  unfit- 
ness for  negotiations,  is  just  what  prudence  would  seem  to  dic- 
tate. Luther  was  not  the  man  to  appear  in  diets.  He  was  not 
sent  to  Speyer  in  1529,  notwithstanding  the  pacific  resolutions 
of  1526 ;  nor  do  we  hear  that  he  was  ordered  to  Hagenau  and  to 
Worms  in  1540,  and  to  Regensburg  in  1541.  He  could  fight 
devils  and  fanatics,  could  tear  up  stumps  and  stones,  but  he  was 
not  endowed  with  the  patience  and  tact  of  the  diplomatist.  In 
these  practical  talents  he  was  greatly  surpassed  by  Melanchthon, 
who  in  diets  and  conferences  served  the  cause  of  the  Reforma- 
tion for  thirty  years  with  pre-eminent  success. 

3.  The  Elector  of  Saxony's  Confession  of  Faith. 
In  1884,  Professor  Theodore  Brieger,  then  of  Marburg,  later 
of  Leipzig,  while  examining  the  Despatches  sent  to  Rome  by 
Cardinal  Campeggius  in  1530,  read  with  astonishment  in  the 
report  made  by  the  Cardinal  at  Innsbruck,  May  12th,  the  follow- 
ing :  ' '  The  Elector  of  Saxony  has  sent  to  the  Emperor  at  Inns- 
bruck a  declaration  of  his  faith,  which,  so  far  as  I  can  learn, 
is  entirely  Catholic  at  the  beginning,  but  full  of  poison  in  the 
middle  and  at  the  end."  Says  Brieger:  "A  most  surprising 
account,  that  the  Elector  John  sent  a  confession  of  faith  to 
the  Emperor  already  before  the  opening  of  the  Diet.  Undoubt- 
edly, this  step  was  taken  upon  advice  of  Count  William  of 
*Niedner's  Zeitschr!ft  (1865),  p.  570. 


THE   JOURNEY    TO    AUGSBURG.  41 

Nassau,  given  by  him  to  the  Elector's  ambassador,  Hans  von 
Dolzig,  at  Dillenbiiro',  near  the  end  of  March. ' '  * 

The  substance  of  this  advice,  as  officially  reported  b}^  Dolzig, 
is  that  the  circumstances  were  such  as  to  require  that  the  Elector 
should  send  a  conciliatory  and  complete  report  about  the  affairs 
of  religion,  to  be  laid  before  the  Emperor  and  his  counsellors 
prior  to  the  opening  of  the  Diet.  In  connection  with  this  advice 
William  and  his  brother,  the  ^Margrave  Henry  of  Nassau,  would 
act  as  mediators  between  the  Elector  and  the  Emperor.  Also  the 
report  would  have  to  be  made  in  the  Latin  or  in  the  French 
language  (die  lateynisehe  oder  welsche  Sprach),  since  the  Em- 
peror and  his  attendants  were  not  well  acquainted  with  any  other 
language,  t  » 

But  instead  of  sending  an  account  of  the  affairs  of  religion  in 
his  dominions  to  the  Emperor,  the  Elector  chose  to  send  him  a 
confession  of  his  faith.  The  reason  for  this  must  be  sought  in 
the  complete  change  of  the  theological  situation.  They  had 
"started  to  Augsburg  with  the  expressed  conviction  that  even 
their  opponents  had  acknowledged  that  the  doctrine  taught  was 
right  and  pure.  They  were  now  suddenly  disabused  of  that 
delusion.  Already,  February  19,  1530,  the  Dukes  of  Bavaria,  on 
learning  that  the  Emperor  had  summoned  a  diet,  commissioned 
the  theological  faculty  of  Ingolstadt  "to  bring  together  in  epi- 
tome all  the  articles  which  had  been  promulgated  by  Luther  dur- 
ing the  last  twelve  years,  and  to  show  their  disagreement  with  the 
true  Christian  faith,  together  with  the  way  in  which  they  could 
be  most  appropriately  refuted,  in  order  that  the  dukes,  in  case 
of  need,  might  have  this  book  in  hand. ' '  | 

Accordingly,  the  Ingolstadt  theological  facult3%  notably  Dr. 
John  Eck,  extracted  four  hundred  and  four  articles  from  the 
writings  of  those  "who  disturb  the  peace  of  the  Church,"  in 
which  he  indiscriminately  denounces  Luther,  IMelanchthon, 
Zwingli,  Carlstadt,  the  Anabaptists,  as  godless  heretics,  who 
scatter  unnumbered  errors  of  doctrine  in  all  their  books.  "For 
to  Luther  we  owe  the  new  iconoclasts,  the  sacramentarians,  the 
Capernians,  the  new  Hussites,  and  their  descendants,  the  Ana- 
baptists, the  new  Epicureans,  who  declare  that  the  soul  is  mortal, 
and  the  Spiritualists,  and  the  new  Cerinthians,  who  deny  that 

*  Kirclieng escMchtliche  Stndien,  p.  312. 

t  See  Dolzig 's  Report  in  Forstemann 's  Ur'kunden'buch,  I.,  127  et  seqq. 

t  Original  quoted  by  Winter  in  GescJiicJite  der  ScTiicksale  der  Ev.  Lehre 
in  und  durcli  Baiern,  p.  269.  See  Plitt,  Einleitung,  I.,  527.  Wiedemann's 
Br.  Jolxann  Eel',  pp.  580-1. 


42  THE   JOURNEY    TO   AUGSBURG. 

Christ  is  God."*  These  four  hundred  and  four  articles  Eck, 
' '  the  humblest  minister  of  the  Church, ' '  offers  to  defend  at  Augs- 
burg in  the  presence  of  the  Emperor.  A  theological  disputa- 
tion is  now  imminent.  The  Elector,  who  had  fallen  in  with 
Eck's  articles,  immediately  on  reaching  Augsburg,  or  perhaps  on 
the  way  thither,  had  discovered  that  the  doctrinal  teaching  of 
his  theologians  would  be  impeached.  A  confession  of  his  faith 
was  what  the  circumstances  required  of  the  Elector,  and  con- 
sequently a  confession  of  faith  was  forthcoming. 

But  for  reasons  which  we  do  not  know,  the  matter  was  con- 
ducted secretly.  We  find  no  allusions  to  it  in  the  letters  of  the 
Elector's  theologians  and  counsellors;  and  in  the  correspondence 
conducted  between  the  Elector  and  his  ambassadors  at  Innsbruck, 
and  with  Counts  Henry  and  William  of  Nassau,  and  William  of 
Neuenar,  there  is  no  expressed  mention  of  a  confession  of  faith : 
nor  do  we  possess  any  written  official  report  of  the  part  acted 
by  the  counts  as  mediators ;  though  there  are  allusions  to  certain 
trabasactions  about  the  affairs  of  religion.  But  in  the  light  of 
Professor  Brieger's  discovery,  such  allusions  become  perfectly  in- 
telligible, as  does  also  the  following  passage  in  a  letter  written 
May  31st  by  Jacob  Sturm  of  Strassburg  to  Zwingli :  ' '  There  is 
a  report,  and  it  is  of  such  a  nature  that  it  does  not  seem  to  be 
wholly  without  foundation,  that  the  Saxon,  through  ambassadors, 
has  sent  to  the  Emperor  at  Innsbruck  certain  articles,  in  which 
he  confesses  his  faith,  and  has  added  that  he  will  not  depart  from 
that  confession,  unless  by  clear  testimonies  of  the  Scripture  he 
is  convinced  and  is  led  to  change  his  mind.  If  this  be  true,  as  I 
have  learned  from  men  worthy  of  confidence,  I  think  they  are 
the  same,  or  not  altogether  different  from  those  which  Luther 
has  recently  had  printed,  and  which  you  will  receive  through 
this  messenger, ' '  f — meaning,  of  course,  the  Schwabach  Articles. 

But  Professor  Brieger  did  not  make  a  copy  of  this  "evan- 
gelical confession. ' '  In  reporting  his  discovery,  he  says :  ' '  Since 
I  was  able  to  note  only  a  few  sentences,  I  cannot  state  the  more 
exact  relation  of  this  confession  to  the  Schwabach  Articles,  that 
is,  I  cannot  say  in  what  way  the  seventeen  Schwabach  Articles 
were  changed  into  the  fifteen  here  present. ' '  % 

Fortunately,  through  the  courteous  assistance  of  several  Amer- 
ican Catholic  scholars,  we  obtained  a  copy  of  this  confession  from 

*A  part  of  Eck's  letter  to  the  Emperor  sent  with  the  Articles. 
t  Zwingli 's  Opera,  8,  p.  459. 

t  EirchengeschichtJiclie  Siudien  fur  Eetiter,  1887,  p.  312;  The  Lutheran 
Quarterly,  July,  1901. 


THE   JOURNEY   TO   AUGSBURG,  43 

the  Secret  Archives  of  the  Pope  in  the  year  1900,  and  published 
the  same,  with  an  English  translation,  in  The  Lutheran  Quar- 
terly for  July,  1901.*  Hence  we  are  now  in  a  position  to  show 
the  exact  relation  which  this  confession  sustains  to  the  Schwa- 
bach  Articles.  We  discover  that  the  form  of  the  Schwabach 
Articles  used  in  the  preparation  of  the  Elector's  Confession  was 
not  that  published  by  Luther  while  residing  at  Coburg,  which 
had  not  yet  reached  Augsburg;  but  an  older  form,  one  in  all 
probability  verbally  in  accord  with  the  original,  which  was  discov- 
ered by  Elias  Frick  in  the  city  archives  at  Ulm,  and  published  by 
him  in  1714,  in  his  German  Edition  of  Seckendorf's  Historia 
Lutheranismi,  pp.  968,  et  seqq.,  published  with  diplomatic  accu- 
racy by  Georg  Gottlieb  AVeber  in  Vol.  I.  of  his  Kritische 
Geschichte  der  Aug  spur  gischen  Confession,  1783.  f  Hence  it  is 
with  this  form  of  the  Schwabach  Articles  that  we  must  compare 
the  Elector's  Confession,  and  when  we  make  the  comparison,  we 
find,  as  observed  by  Brieger,  that  this  confession  agrees  substan- 
tially with  the  Schwabach  Articles,  though  there  are  forms  of 
statement  in  the  confession  which  cannot  be  called  translations, 
but  adaptations  or  changes  made  in  view  of  the  purpose  which 
governed  the  mind  of  the  Elector,  and  of  his  counsellors  and 
theologians,  from  the  day  he  resolved  to  go  to  Augsburg,  to  the 
day  on  which  he  left  Augsburg,  the  purpose  of  approximating 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  as  closely  as  possible.  This 
becomes  at  once  apparent  in  the  change  made  in  Article  X.,  as 
the  following  comparison  shows: 


SCHWABACH   ARTICLES. 

The  Eucharist  or  sacrament  of  the 
Altar  also  consists  of  two  parts,  viz., 
that  there  is  truly  present  in  the 
bread  and  in  the  wine,  the  true  body 
and  blood  of  Christ,  according  to 
the  sound  of  the  words:  ''This  is 
my  body,  this  is  my  blood, ' '  and  that 
it  is  not  only  bread  and  wine,  as 
even  now  the  other  side  asserts. 
These  words  require  and  also  convey 
faith,  and  also  exercise  it  in  all  those 
who  desire  this  sacrament,  and  do 
not  act  against  it;  just  as  Baptism 
also  brings  and  gives  faith,  if  it  be 
desired.! 


THE  elector's   CONFESSION. 

That  the  Eucharist  or  sacrament 
of  the  altar  also  consists  of  two 
parts:  Namely,  that  truly  and  sub- 
stantially in  bread  and  wine  are 
present  the  true  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  according  to  those  words: 
This  is  my  body,  this  is  my  blood, 
and  that  by  no  means  is  it  bread  and 
wine,  as,  nevertheless,  another  party 
maintains.  These  words  likewise 
require  and  implant  faith,  and 
strengthen  it  in  all  who  desire  that 
sacrament,  and  do  not  act  contrary 
to  it,  as  also  Baptism  brings  and 
imparts  faith  if  it  be  believed. 


*  Reprinted  by  E.  Stange  in  SUidien  und  KriUlcen,  1903,  pp.  345  et  seqq. 

t  Second  Beylage. 

%  Jacobs,  BooJ:  of  Concord,  II.,  72. 


44  THE    JOURNEY    TO    AUGSBURG. 

In  Article  IX.  the  Anabaptists  are  named,  and  their  teaching  ^ 
is  rejected.  Article  III.  ends  with  the  words :  Lord  of  all  crea- 
tures, and,  therefore,  contains  onl}^  a  little  more  than  a  third 
of  the  original,  while  Articles  XI.  and  XV.  of  the  Schwabach 
series  do  not  appear  in  any  form  in  the  Elector's  Confession. 
Such  articles,  in  their  evangelical  form,  as  given  in  the  Schwa- 
bach Articles — "that  private  confession  should  not  be  enforced 
by  laws,"  and  "that  it  is  not  necessary  to  enumerate  all  sins," 
and  "that  the  doctrine  which  prohibits  marriage  and  ordinary 
food  and  drink  to  priests,  together  with  monastic  life  and  vows 
of  every  kind,  are  nothing  but  damnable  doctrines  of  devils" — 
such  articles  would  have  given  mortal  offense  at  Charles's  court, 
and  would  have  gone  far  to  establish  Eck's  accusations.  In 
Article  XII.,  instead  of  "a  holy  Christian  Church"  (Art.  XI., 
Schwabach)  we  have,  very  significantly,  "one  Holy  Catholic 
Church;"  and  we  find  nothing  to  correspond  to  the  declaration 
in  Article  XVI.,  that  the  Mass  is  the  chief  abomination.  In  a 
word,  the  Elector's  Confession  is  a  changed  and  CatJiolicized 
adaptation  of  the  seventeen  Schwabach  Articles.  Very  much 
that  is  characteristic  in  those  Articles,  and  distinctive  as  against 
the  Roman  Catholic  teaching,  is  removed,  and  the  whole  confes- 
sion faces  in  a  direction  not  contemplated  by  the  Schwabach 
Articles;  though  the  Schwabach  Articles,  by  their  teaching  on 
Baptism  and  their  reference  to  the  Anabaptists  as  the  blasphem- 
ers of  Baptism,  and  by  their  teaching  on  the  Lord's  Supper,^ 
were  well  calculated  to  refute  Eck's  charge  that  the  Lutherans, 
the  Anabaptists,  and  the  Zwinglians  taught  alike  on  the  sac- 
raments. 

But,  in  regard  to  this  Confession  of  the  Elector,  we  must 
conclude  that  it  was  put  in  its  present  shape  very  hastily,  either 
immediately  after  the  arrival  in  Augsburg,  May  2d,  or  possibly 
on  the  way  thither,  after  the  electoral  party  had  left  Coburg. 
since  it  was  laid  before  the  Emperor  about  May  5th,  and  was  con- 
sidered at  court  May  8th.*  That  it  did  not  make  a  favorable 
impression  on  the  Emperor  and  on  his  counsellors,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  Campeggius  has  learned  that  it  was  regarded  as 
full  of  poison  in  the  middle  and  at  the  end.  But  that  it  should 
have  fallen  into  oblivion,  and  should  have  remained  unknown 
for  more  than  three  centuries  and  a  half,  is  remarkable,  when 
we  consider  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  prepared.    And  all 

*  Forstemann,  I.,  174,  180.  Seckenclorf ,  Historia,  II.,  See.  56,  Add.  III. 
J.  J.  iMiiller,  Historie,  p.  476.     Brieger,  Kircheng.  Studien,  pp.  313-31.5. 


THE    JOUKXKY    TO    AUGSBURG.  45 

that  we  know  of  its  history  is  that  it  was  prepared,  was  sent  to 
Innsbruck,  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor,  was  considered  at  the 
Imperial  Court,  and  that  it  failed  to  conciliate  the  Catholics  to 
the  Lutherans.  That  it  should  have  been  based  on  the  Schwabach 
Articles  seems  most  natural,  since  only  a  few  months  earlier  these 
articles,  bearing  the  title :  Artickel  vom  Churfilrst  von  Sachssen 
des  glmvens  halb,  had  been  accepted  by  the  Elector  as  his  con- 
fession of  faith,  and  had  been  used  by  his  authority  in  an  effort 
to  unite  the  forces  of  Protestantism. 

That  the  motive  in  the  preparation  of  this  confession  was  the 
desire  to  counteract  the  effect  of  Eck's  Articles,  there  can  be 
no  doubt.  The  need  noAv  was  that  the  Emperor  should  know 
what  doctrines  were  taught  under  the  protection  of  the  Elec- 
tor. Count  William's  advice  would  doubtless  be  remembered, 
but  only  indirectly  and  remotely  could  it  have  been  responsible 
for  this  particular  step  on  the  part  of  the  Elector.  Eck's  "most 
diabolical  slanders,"*  to  use  the  words  of  Melanchthon,  were 
the  inciting  cause  of  the  preparation  of  this  Confession,  as 
they  likewise  were  the  exciting  cause  for  the  inclusion 
of  Articles  of  Faith  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  And 
this  confession  has  value  now  as  the  oldest  known 
draft  of  the  doctrinal  articles  of  the  Augustana,  and  possibly 
the  form,  real,  or  approximate,  in  which  the  doctrinal  articles 
were  sent  to  Luther,  May  llth.f  Hence  we  may  say,  that  had 
the  Emperor  reached  Augsburg  early  in  May,  or  had  the  Elector 
of  Saxony's  Confession  of  faith  been  favorably  received  at  Inns- 
bruck, we  would  not  to-day  have  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but 
the  Confession  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  as  the  ecclesiastical  and 
religious  result  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg.  It  was  thus  a  fortunate 
circumstance  for  Lutheranism  and  for  Protestantism  that  the 
Emperor's  coming  was  delayed  until  a  confession  of  faith  could 
be  elaborated,  which  represented  all  the  Lutheran  Estates  gath- 
ered at  that  memorable  Diet  of  Augsburg,  in  the  year  1530.  It 
was  seven  Lutheran  Princes  and  two  Lutheran  cities  that  gave 
to  the  Church  and  to  the  world  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and 
by  that  act  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

*  C.  E.  II.,  45.  Already,  May  4th,  Melanchthon  had  written  to  Luther 
about  Eck's  Articles.     C.   R.   II.,   39.  , 

t  See  Knaake,  Luther's  Antheil,  p.  77,  find  Ender's,  Luther's  Brief - 
wechsel,  VII.,  p.  331,  note  2. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE    COMPOSITION   OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

There  were  valid  personal  reasons  why  Luther  should  not  be 
chosen  to  draAV  up  articles  to  be  presented  to  the  Emperor  at  the 
Diet.  Articles  composed  by  him  would  have  been  as  offensive  to 
the  opposite  party  as  his  person  was.  They  would  also  have 
borne  the  characteristic  qualities  of  their  author,  and  would 
have  defeated  the  end  in  view,  which  was  the  restoration  of 
peace  and  unity.  Hence,  very  wisely  has  the  judicious  Weber 
written:  "Since,  according  to  the  Imperial  Rescript  for  the 
Diet  at  Augsburg,  in  1530,  the  Emperor  wished  to  remove  all 
errors  and  disputes  in  matters  of  faith,  and  wished  to  hear  the 
opinion  and  view  of  everyone,  it  was  wise  in  the  Elector  not  to 
turn  over  to  Luther  the  further  expansion  of  the  articles  com- 
posed by  the  theologians  at  Wittenberg,  and  to  have  him  finish 
the  articles  which  were  to  be  delivered  to  the  Emperor.  For,  since 
Luther  had  been  outlawed  by  the  Emperor,  and  could  not  even  be 
taken  to  the  Diet  by  the  Elector,  but  had  to  be  left  at  Coburg, 
would  it  have  been  wise  in  the  Elector  and  his  associates  to  desire 
to  deliver  to  the  Emperor  a  confession  of  which  the  outlawed 
Luther  was  known  to  be  the  author?  Would  Luther,  full  of 
enthusiasm  for  the  truth,  violent  in  controversy  with  his  ene- 
mies, often  incautious  and  insulting  in  speech,  have  been  able 
to  restrain  himself  in  elaborating  the  Confession,  when  once  he 
had  to  speak  on  the  controverted  doctrines  and  abuses  of  the 
Roman  Church?  Only  read  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  composed 
for  the  Council  of  Mantua.  Had  he  written  the  Confession  in  the 
same  tone  and  spirit,  considering  the  circumstances  of  the  small 
band  of  Protestants  at  that  time,  could  it  have  been  read  in  the 
presence  of  the  Emperor,  Electors,  Bishops  and  assembled  Estates 
of  the  Empire  ?  Would  it  not  have  increased  the  bitterness  of  the 
opposite  party,  and  thus,  humanly  speaking,  have  brought 
greater  injury  than  profit  to  the  good  cause?  Valdesius  said  of 
iMelanchthon  's  Confession;  which  he  read  before  it  w^as  delivered 
to  the  Emperor,  that  it  was  so  bitter  that  the  opposite  party  would 
not  tolerate  it.  What  w^ould  he  not  have  judged  in  the  case  of 
Luther's  work?    Even  Cochlaeus,  who  compared  the  Schmalkald 

(46) 


THE    COMPOSITieN    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    COXFESSIOX.  47 

Articles  with  the  Confession,  very  correctly  judged  that  it  was 
far  easier  to  listen  to  the  latter,  and  that  its  words  and  thoughts 
were  much  less  offensive  than  those  of  the  former.  Hence,  it  was 
well  planned  that  Luther,  with  his  fire  and  enthusiasm,  who,  when 
the  truth  was  involved,  cared  as  little  for  a  king  as  for  a  stupid 
priest,  in  a  matter  so  delicate  as  the  affair  of  religion  at  that 
time,  should  not  be  allowed  to  speak  before  the  Emperor  and  the 
Empire.  For  truth,  when  it  has  to  contend  with  prejudice,  oper- 
ates more  effectively  on  the  human  heart  when  it  appears  in 
modest,  pleasing  attire,  than  when  it  appears  in  a  course,  rasping 
dress,  which  really  discredits  it,  and  exasperates  and  incenses, 
rather  than  conciliates  the  votary  of  prejudice.  Therefore,  the 
work  was  given  over  by  the  Elector  to  Melanchthon;  for  he, 
not  less  than  Luther,  was  a  friend  of  truth,  had  a  much  calmer 
soul,  was  gentle  and  modest,  and  with  the  beautiful  and  pleasing 
style,  in  which  he  surpassed  the  theologians  of  his  time,  knew 
how  to  speak  the  truth  without,  in  the  least,  compromising  it, 
and  without  exasperating  the  opposite  party."  * 

1.     MelanchtJion's  State  of  Mind  in  1530. 
r  But  it  is  important  here  and  now  to  inquire  into  Melanchthon 's 
state  of  mind  in  the  year  1530,  in  order  rightly  to  interpret  his 
conduct  at  Augsburg,  and  to  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  Con- 
fession which  he  produced. 

He  carried  with  him  to  Augsburg  the  mind  common  at  that 
time  to  all  of  the  Electoral  party— the  mind  bent  on  conciliation 
and  on  reconciliation.  This  mind  is  clearly  indicated,  if  not 
positively  expressed,  in  the  Torgau  Articles,  and  in  the  Preface 
(exordium)  to  the  Confession.  He  considered  that  neither  he  nor 
his  fellow-Lutherans  had  separated  themselves  from  the  Catholic 
Church,  but  that  they  were  members  of  the  same.  Consequently, 
j  they  must  maintain  and  obtain  their  rights  within  the  Church. 
Besides,  Melanchthon  was  an  absolute  imperialist.  He  reverenced 
the  Emperor  with  a  veneration  that  bordered  on  idolatry.  He 
looked  on  him  as  one  of  those  fabled  heroes  or  demigods,  that  in 
olden  times  were  believed  to  walk  among  men.  He  esteemed  him 
endowed  with  all  civil,  domestic  and  Christian  virtues,  and 
applied  to  him  the  lines  in  which  Horace  describes  the  Emperor 
Augustus : 


*  Kritische  GescMchte  der  Augsb.  Conf.,  I.,  26  et  seqq.     Vireh  in  Zeit- 
schrift  fur  Kirchengeschichte   (1888),  p.   73. 


48  THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBuho    CONFESSION. 

Hoe  nihil  majiis  nieliusve  terris 
Fata  donavenmt,  bouique  Divi : 
Nee  dabimt,  quamvis  redeant  in  aurum 
Tempora  priscum.* 

He  hated  the  democratic  principles  of  the  Swiss  with  a  per- 
fect hatred,  and  believed  that  they  were  trying  to  draw  the 
Lutherans  into  their  schemes.  Philip  of  Hesse,  he  called  Anti- 
ochus.  Besides,  in  his  estimation,  the  Swiss  held  dogmata  intol- 
erabilia,  and  had  formed  insidiosissima  consilia.  Under  these  cir- 
cumstances, and  with  his  imperialistic  and  patristic  predilections, 
he  conceived  that  both  he  and  his  party  stood  very  near  to  the 
[  Catholic  Church  and  to  the  Emperor.  Hence,  apart  from  union 
with  the  Church  and  the  Emperor,  he  foresaw  only  wars,  blood- 
shed, devastation,  civil  and  religious  commotions.! 
f  Success  on  the  part  of  Philip,  and  of  the  Swiss,  would  utterly 
defeat  the  purpose  and  the  desire  of  his  party  to  obtain  and  to 
enjoy  their  rights  within  the  Church.  Joined  to  these  things 
were  also  the  jealousies  of  the  theologians,  and  the  imhecilitas 
animi  of  the  Princes,  about  which  he  afterwards  so  bitterly  com- 
plained; J  and  also  Eck's  four  hundred  and  four  Articles  (de- 
scribed in  the  preceding  chapter),  in  which  the  doctrines  of  the 
Lutherans  were  identified  with  all  ancient  and  modern  heresies. 

Such,  beyond  all  cpiestion,  as  shown  by  his  own  letters,  w^as 
the  mental  attitude  of  Melanchthon  at  Augsburg,  in  the  year 
1530.  On  the  one  hand  he  stood,  almost  with  the  devotion  of  a 
martyr,  by  the  Empire  and  by  the  Church.^  On  the  other  hand, 
he  opposed,  ivith  the  intensity  of  religious  conviction,  the  politi- 
cal schemes  and  the  "opposite"  doctrines  of  the  Anabaptists 
and  the  Swiss,  whom  he  practically  identified  as  aiming  to 
overthroiv  the  Church  and  the  Empire.\\ ' 

Unless  M'C  take  these  facts  into  consideration,  we  cannot  under- 
stand the  position  of  Melanchthon  at  Augsburg,  nor  gain  a  proper 
viewpoint  for  interpreting  the  purpose  and  meaning  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  as  Melanchthon  conceived  it  and  composed 
it.U 

*  Carminum  Liber,  IV.,  II.     C.  R.  II.,  430  et  seqq. 

t  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oet.,  1900,  p.  489.  Ellinger,  Philipv 
Melanchthon  (1902),  pp.  283-285.  Hoennicke,  Melanchthon' s  Stellung  auf 
dem  Beichstage  su  Augsburg  1530,  in  Beutsch  Ev.  Blatter,  Nov.,  1908. 

t  Melanchthon.  Pacdagogica,  p.  38.  C.  E.  II.,  314.  See  also  Kawerau, 
Kirchengcschichte  III.,  Dritte  Aiiflage,  p.  101,  who  says:  "The  Saxons  of 
the  Electorate  were  far  more  inclined  to  come  to  an  understanding  with 
Ferdinand  than  with  the  Swiss." 

§  See  his  letters  to  Campeggius,  C.  R.  II.,  81  and  170. 

II  See  C.  R.  II.,  104;  XXIII.,  749. 

If  "War  die  Konfession,  welche  der  Knrfiirst  von  Sachsen  in  seinem  und 


THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUG8BURG    CONFESSION.  49 

I"  Hence  Melanchthon  's  concessions  at  Augsburg — in  the  Confes- 
sion, in  his  correspondence  with  Campeggius,  in  the  peace  nego- 
tiations—did not  proceed  from  personal  weakness,  but  from  an 
honest  desire  to  serve  his  party,  to  carry  out  their  determina- 
tion to  remain  in  the  Church,  to  vindicate  the  Lutherans  from 
identification  with  the  Zwinglians  and  the  Anabaptists,  and  to 
maintain  the  integrity  of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  the  German 
Nation. 

2.     Melanchthon  is  CJtosen. 

Now,  it  was  while  Melanchthon  was  in  the  frame  of  mind 
described  above,  that  he  was  chosen  to  write  an  "Apology,"  to 
be  used  in  defense  of  the  Elector  before  the  Diet.  That  the  Elec- 
tor was  influenced  by  some  such  considerations  as  those  named  by 
Weber,  can  scarcely  be  questioned,  when  we  take  into  the  account 
the  circumstances  and  the  differences  in  the  dispositions  and 
talents  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon. 
I  At  all  events,  Melanchthon  was  chosen — certainly  not  without 
good  and  sufficient  reasons;  and  this  action  on  the  part  of  the 
Elector  and  his  counsellors,  made  Melanchthon  for  the  time 
being  the  theological  leader  of  the  reforming  party,  as  the 
Elector  was  its  political  leader.  That  Melanchthon  occupied  such 
a  position  is  seen  in  the  numerous  opinions  written  by  him  at 
Augsburg,  and  in  the  fact  that  the  Bedenken,  brought  by  other 
theologians  to  Augsburg,  were  turned  over  to  him  for  examina- 
tion; that  the  Niirnberg  commissioners  report  his  actions,  and 
that  he  held  interviews  with  Schlepper  and  Valdesius,  the  Imper- 
ial Secretaries.  Never  was  leadership  more  wisely  bestowed; 
never  were  its  duties  more  conscientiously  and  faithfully  exe- 
cuted; and  it  came  to  him  so  naturally  and  so  fittingly  that 
neither  Luther,  nor  any  one  of  the  other  theologians  journeyiag 
together  to  Augsburg,  has  left  on  record  a  single  word  of  com- 
plaint. Three  hundred  and  eighty  years  of  after-thought  have 
.justified  the  wisdom  of  the  selection.  Melanchthon 's  moderation, 
learning,  culture,  and  his  familiarity  with  the  Wittenberg  teach- 
ing, pointed  him  out  as  the  man  best  fitted  to  draw  up  whatever 
writing  was  to  be  laid  before  the  Diet.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  selection  was  entirely  acceptable  to  Luther,  and  that 

seiner  lutherisehen  Glaubensgenossen  Namen  am  25.  Juni  vor  Kaiser  und 
Reich  verlesen  liess,  im  Sinne  ausserster  Annahrung  an  die  alte  Kirche 
und  sohroffster  Absonderung  von  den  Zwinglischen  gehalten,  so  ging  Melanch- 
thon in  den  spater  gefiihrten  Verhandlungen  noch  sehr  weit  iiber  diese 
Linie  hinaus. "    Baumgarten,  Geschwhte  Karls  V.,  3,  p.  28. 


50  THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

(  Luther  assisted  him  by  his  counsel,  so  long  as  the  -two  remained 
/  together  at  Coburg. 

3.     MeMnchihon  Writes  the  Preface  at  Cohurg. 

While  the  electoral  party  was  sojourning  at  Coburg,  April 
15th  to  April  23d,  Melanchthon  wrote  the  "long  and  rhetorical 
preface"*  or  introduction  to  the  Articles  on  Abuses.  Formerly 
it  was  thought  by  some  theologians  that  by  Preface  (exordium) 
is  to  be  understood  Part  First  of  the  Confession,  or  the  Articles 
of  Faith,  which  were  intended  to  introduce  the  Articles  on 
Abuses.  But  it  was  seen  by  those  who  took  a  deeper  and  more 
critical  look  into  the  Torgau  Articles,  that  such  a  theory  was 
utterly  inconsistent  with  the  declaration  that  the  enemies  of 
the  Reformation  themselves  approved  the  Wittenberg  doctrine 
as  pure  and  right,  and  that  "the  dissension  now  is  especially 
concerning  some  abuses,  which  have  been  introduced  by  human 
doctrine  and  statutes,  of  which  we  will  report  in  order,  and 
indicate  for  what  reasons  my  lord  is  induced  to  cause  certain 
abuses  to  be  abated. ' '  But  now,  by  the  discovery  and  publication 
of  The  Oldest  Bedaction  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,^  such 
theory  in  regard  to  the  Preface  is  utterly  and  forever  exploded, 
for  here  we  have  that  identical  Preface,  which  up  to  June  1, 
1530,  at  least,  stood  at  the  head  of  the  Confession — Articles  of 
Faith  and  Articles  on  Abuses — in  so  far  as,  at  that  time,  it  had 
been  written. 

This  Preface  is  "long  and  rhetorical."  It  covers  seven 
printed  pages  octavo,  and  is  of  the  nature  of  an  oration 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  Charles  the  Fifth.  It  speaks  wholly 
in  the  name  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  is  sycophantically 
apologetic  in  tone  and  in  contents.  "It  begins,"  as  Dr.  Kolde 
says,  "with  a  very  evident  captatio  benevolentiae."  It  declares 
that  the  Elector  places  his  hope  and  trust,  next  to  God.  in  the 
mildness  and  goodness  of  the  Emperor,  who  has  always  sought 
the  peace  of  Europe,  and  that,  too,  without  showing  a  trace  of 
pride  or  of  arrogance,  or  of  desire  for  blood ;  also  that  nothing 
could  be  more  acceptable  to  God  than  that  the  Emperor  should 
employ  his  power  for  promoting  the  unity  of  Christendom,  as 
had  been  formerly  done  by  Theodoric,  by  Charles  the  Great  and 
by  Henry  II.,  since  the  Holy  Spirit  admonishes  Princes  to  take 

*  Forstemann,  Vrl'^mdeiibuch,  I.,  68. 

t  Discovered  in  the  Niirnberg  Archives  in  Jnly,  1905,  by  Drs.  Schornbaiim 
and  Kolde,  and  published  by  the  latter,  July,  1906.  See  The  Lutheran  Quar- 
terly, January,  1907. 


THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  51 

an  interest  in  the  Faith ;  that  the  Electors  of  Saxony,  Frederick 
and  John,  have  never  favored  new  doctrines,  and  have  always 
been  loyal  to  the  Roman  Emperors,  and  have  sought  the  peace 
and  unity  of  Germany.  When  indulgences  were  preached  in 
Saxony,  "]\Iartin  Luther  spoke  in  opposition  through  a  few 
small  treatises  in  the  school,  and  not  before  the  people,  and 
without  abusing  and  maligning  the  Pope."  But  Luther's 
enemies  attacked  him  in  both  languages  and  compelled  him  to 
reply.  The  Anabaptists  had  raised  various  disputes  and  had 
opposed  the  secular  government,  had  denied  the  rights  of 
private  property  and  had  declaimed  against  the  preaching  of 
the  word,  and  against  the  sacrament.  They  had  been  opposed 
by  Luther.  The  ceremonies  are  not  abolished,  ' '  but  much  rather 
are  they  observed  with  the  true  fear  of  God,  and  in  truth  it 
may  be  said  that  not  in  all  Germany  is  the  Mass  held  with 
greater  fear  of  God,  and  with  a  better  understanding  on  the  part 
of  the  people  than  among  us."  "The  sacrament  is  received 
by  the  people  with  greater  reverence  and  more  frequently  than 
heretofore,"  etc. 

' '  Confession  is  still  maintained,  and  the  power  of  the  Keys  is 
much  praised  in  preaching,  and  the  people  are  admonished  in 
regard  of  the  great  value  of  absolution." 

"The  preaching  is  pure  and  intelligible,  and  this  is  unques- 
tionably the  chief  sacrifice  before  God. ' ' 

The  useful  ceremonies  are  still  maintained  and  also  the  festival 
days.  The  ordinances  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony  "are,  for 
the  most  part,  according  to  the  old  usages  and  customs  of  the 
Roman  Church,  as  sho\^^l  in  the  holy  doctrine. ' ' 

The  Preface  closes  thus :  ' '  We  will  now  speak  of  doctrine, 
and  will  first  recount  the  chief  articles  of  faith,  from  which 
the  Emperor  can  see  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony  has  permitted 
nothing  unchristian  to  be  preached  in  his  dominion,  but  has 
with  all  diligence  held  fast  to  the  common  pure  Christian 
faith." 

We  must  say  of  this  Preface  that  it  is  painfully  apologetic 
from  beginning  to  end.  It  proposes  to  place  the  settlement  of 
the  entire  dispute  and  contention  about  religion  in  the  hands 
of  the  Emperor.  It  makes  no  reference  whatever  to  the  Em- 
peror's promise  (in  the  Rescript  by  which  he  summoned  the 
Diet)  that  "the  opinion  and  view  of  each  one  should  be  taken 
up  and  carefully  considered."  It  proposes  to  make  the  Emperor 
arbiter;  and  it  denies  that  any  new  doctrines  have  been  intro- 


52  THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

duced  in  the  churches  of  the  Electorate  of  Saxony.  In  a  word 
this  Preface  evades  the  entire  issue  on  which  the  German  Re- 
formation justifies  and  forever  must  justify  itself,  namely,  the 
matter  and  question  of  Doctrine,  for  if  the  German  Reforma- 
tion be  not  a  doctrinal  protest  and  a  doctrinal  revolution  as 
over  against  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  (and  no  other  Church  was  at  that  time  in  the  purview), 
at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  then  it  had  not  at  the 
beginning,  and  never  has  had,  a  right  to  exist,  since  on  its  o\mi 
principle,  laid  down  in  Article  VII.  of  the  Augusta'na,  the  true 
unity  of  the  Church  consists  in  the  purity  of  doctrine,  and  not 
in  '^ uniform  ceremonies  instituted  by  men."  Indeed,  the 
Lutheran  Church  might  tolerate  every  ceremony  qua  ceremony 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  were  it  not  for  the  doctrine  that 
lies  back  of,  informs,  determines,  and  expresses  itself  through 
the  ceremony,  for  as  Guericke  has  well  said,  in  speaking  of  the 
Church:  "Its  external  phase,  or  constitution  and  worship,  is 
for  the  most  part,  the  necessary  fruit  and  effect  of  the  inner 
principle  of  doctrine  and  creed. ' '  And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
German  Reformation  took  its  start  in  antagonism  to  the  doc- 
trinal teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  The  Ninety-five 
Theses  attacked  the  doctrine  of  Indulgences.  Luther's  Three 
Great  Reformation  Writings  of  the  year  1520 :  The  Address  to 
the  Christian  Nobility  of  the  German  Nation,  On  Christian 
Liberty,  On  the  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Church,  which 
together  contain  the  promise  and  potency  of  the  entire  German 
Reformation,  are  attacks  on  the  most  fundamental  principles 
and  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  He  had  called 
the  Pope  Antichrist  and  the  Church  a  harlot ;  he  had  enunciated 
the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone,  and  had  reiterated  it 
a  thousand  times  and  in  a  thousand  forms ;  he  had  taught  a  new 
doctrine  of  the  sacraments,  of  the  Church,  of  the  ministry;  he 
had  revolutionized  the  service  of  worship  both  in  its  funda- 
mental conception  and  in  its  forms.  All  these  things  had  he 
done  prior  to  the  year  1530.  Melanchthon  had  written  the  Loci 
Communes,  which  Luther  had  endorsed  as  "an  invincible  book," 
and  had  prepared  the  Visitation  Articles,  which  had  been  ap- 
proved by  Luther  and  Bugenhagen,  and  which  had  been  ac- 
cepted by  the  Elector  of  Saxony  as  a  basis  for  the  reformation 
of  the  churches  in  his  dominions.  In  a  word,  the  doctrine 
which  now,  for  at  least  a  decade,  had  been  taught  in  the  Elector- 
ate of  Saxony,  was  as  different  from  the  doctrine  that  had  been 


TlIK    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUCiSBURG    COXKKSSIOX.  53 

taught  there  two  decades  earlier,  as  John  Gerhard's  Loci 
Theologici  is  different  from  the  Summa  Theologica  of  Thomas 
Aquinas. 

But  Melanchthon  writes,  and  the  Elector  and  his  counsellors 
accept,  and  Luther  endorses,  this  ' '  long  and  rhetorical  Preface, ' ' 
which,  to  say  the  least,  is  an  evasion  of  the  fundamental  ques- 
tions at  issue  between  the  Protestants  and  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  namely,  the  doctrinal  questions;  and  it  is  not  too  much 
to  say,  that,  had  this  Preface  been  adopted  by  the  Protestant 
Princes,  assembled  at  Augsburg  in  1530,  and  delivered  by  them 
to  the  Emperor,  there  would  have  remained  no  more  of  the 
German  Reformation,  and  there  would  be  no  Lutheran  Church 
to-day,  for  reconciliation  on  the  basis  of  this  Preface  and  of  the 
Articles  on  Abuses  would  have  been  easy,  had  the  Lutherans 
been  able  to  convince  the  Emperor,  and  the  Pope,  and  the 
Bishops  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  that  this  Preface  was  a 
correct  representation  of  the  affairs  of  the  churches  in  Ger- 
many, that  is,  that  the  Lutherans  had  attacked  no  doctrines  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  had  introduced  no  new  doc- 
trines, that  is,  no  doctrines  that  differed  from  the  then  current 
doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  had 
only  abolished  a  few  abuses  in  ceremonies  which  had  been  intro- 
duced without  the  consent  of  the  Church. 

This  "long  and  rhetorical  Preface"  was  first  written  by 
^Melanchthon  at  Coburg.  ]May  4tli  he  wrote  to  Luther  from 
Augsburg:  "I  have  made  the  Preface  (exordium)  somewhat 
more  rhetorical  than  I  had  written  it  at  Coburg. ' '  *  What  is 
meant  by  the  words  "somewhat  more  rhetorical"  we  have  no 
means  of  ascertaining,  nor  do  we  laiow  the  form  of  the  Preface 
at  this  time.  We  know  it  only  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  sent 
to  Niirnberg,  June  3d,t  though  great  doubt  was  entertained 
about  it  May  31st.t  Subsequently  it  was  abandoned,  and  was 
lost  sight  of  entirely  until  its  discovery  in  July,  1905,  as  already 
noted,  when  it  appears  followed  by  Articles  of  Faith,  in  view 
of  which,  undoubtedly,  the  last  paragraph,  quoted  above,  was 
written. 

4.     The  Articles  of  Faith. 
When  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther  about  the  Preface,  May 
4th,  he  gave  no  intimation  that  he  contemplated  the  introduc- 
tion of  Articles  of  Faith  into  the  "Apology,"  though  he  had 

*  C.  E.  II.,  p.  40.  t  C.  E.  II.,  83.  i  C.  E.  II.,  78. 


54  THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

alreacV  seen  Eck's  booklet,*  which  he  describes  as  "a  big  batch 
of  propositions."  On  the  11th  of  May  he  wrote  to  Luther  as 
follows:  "Our  Apology  has  been  sent  to  you,  though  it  is  more 
properly  a  confession.  For  the  Emperor  will  not  have  time 
to  hear  long  discussions.  Nevertheless  I  have  said  those  things 
which  I  thought  would  be  especially  profitable  and  appropriate. 
AVith  this  purpose  I  have  included  about  all  the  Articles  of  Faith, 
because  Eck  has  published  the  most  diabolical  slanders  against 
us.  Against  these  I  wished  to  present  a  remedy.  Determine  in 
regard  to  the  whole  writing  in  accordance  with  your  spirit."  f 

During  the  week  from  May  4th  to  May  lltli,  Melanchthon  had 
prepared  "Articles  of  Faith"  and  had  inserted  them  between 
the  Preface  and  the  Articles  on  Abuses.  This  action  changed 
the  "Apology"  into  a  confession,  though  the  whole  document 
was  yet  often  called  Apology.  The  reason  given  for  including 
Articles  of  Faith  is  clearly  enough  stated  by  ]\Ielanchthon.  It 
was  the  slanders  contained  in  Eck's  four  hundred  and  four 
Articles.  The  reason  was  the  same  as  that  which  had  deter- 
mined the  Elector  to  send  a  confession  of  his  faith  to  the 
Emperor.  He  has  discovered,  as  the  Elector  had,  that  the 
theological  situation  had  changed.  The  "long  and  rhetorical 
Preface"  and  the  Articles  on  Abuses  will  not  meet  the  emer- 
gency. The  doctrinal  teaching  of  Luther  especially,  and  also 
of  iMelanchthon,  had  been  attacked,  and  they  had  been  accused 
of  heretical  teaching  on  almost  every  subject  of  the  Christian 
doctrine,  and  had  been  willfully  confounded  with  all  kinds  of 
heretics,  both  ancient  and  modern.  There  was  only  one  safe  and 
proper  course  to  take.  Articles  of  Faith  alone  could  furnish  a 
"remedium."  Thus  Eck's  Articles  were  the  inciting  cause  of 
"the  Articles  of  Faith,"  which  changed  the  proposed  Apology 
into  a  Confession  of  Faith.  Of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
and  of  this  no  competent  writer  on  the  genesis  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  entertains  a  doubt  as  over  against  the  supposition 
formerly  entertained  by  some  writers  "in  confessional  rather 
than  in  historical  interest,"  that  the  Doctrinal  Articles  consti- 
tuted the  Preface.  IMelanehthon  himself  has  spoken  on  this  sub- 
ject in  giving  an  accoimt  of  the  composition  of  the  Confession, 
the  fullest  and  the  most  explicit  that  ever  came  from  his  pen.  He 
says:  "Also  some  papal  writers  had  scattered  slander  in  the 
Diet,  by  which  abominable  lies  were  heaped  on  our  churches,  as 
that  they  had  many  damnable  errors,  and,  like  the  Anabaptists, 
*  C.  K.  II.,  39.  t  C.  R.  II.,  45. 


THE    COMPOSITION    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  55 

were  heretical  and  seditious.  Now  an  answer  had  to  be  made 
to  the  Emperor;  and  for  the  refutation  of  the  slanders  it  was 
resolved  that  all  the  Articles  of  Christian  doctrine  shoirid  be 
brought  together  in  order,  so  that  everyone  might  know  that  our 
churches  were  unjustly  accused  by  these  papal  slanders. ' '  *  Also 
in  the  Preface  to  the  Latin  Corpus  Doctrinae:  "1  brought  to 
gether  with  simple  purpose  the  principal  points  of  the  Con- 
fession that  is  extant,  embracing  about  the  sum  of  the  doc- 
trines of  our  churches,  both  that  an  answer  might  be  made  to 
the  Emperor,  and  that  false  accusations  might  be  refuted."! 

We  know,  then,  how  it  came  about  that  we  have  ' '  Articles  of 
Faith"  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  we  do  not  know  how 
many  such  Articles  the  Confession  contained  in  this  first  draft, 
mentioned.  May  11th.  We  Imow,  however,  that  it  was  very  far 
from  having  the  number  that  it  now  contains.  In  The  Oldest 
Redaction,  which  represents  the  condition  of  the  Confession, 
ilay  31st,  we  find  Articles  of  Faith  numbered  from  one  to 
eighteen,  though  there  is  no  article  14  appearing  between  Zum 
13  and  Zum  15,  so  that  in  reality  there  are  only  seventeen 
articles,  all  told.  There  is  no  article  on  Church  Government, 
and  no  articles  that  correspond  to  Articles  XX.  and  XXI.  in 
the  final  form  of  the  Confession.  Certainly  it  was  in  a  much 
more  inchoate  condition,  May  11th,  for  May  22d  Melanchthon 
writes  to  Luther:  "In  the  Apology  we  change  many  things 
daily.  The  article  on  vows  I  have  removed  because  it  was  too 
brief,  and  I  have  supplied  its  place  with  another  on  the  same 
subject  somewhat  longer.  I  am  now  treating  also  of  the  power 
of  the  Keys.  I  wish  you  would  rim  over  the  Articles  of  Faith. 
If  you  think  there  is  nothing  defective  in  them,  we  will  treat 
the  rest  as  best  we  can.  For  they  must  be  changed  and  adapted 
to  circumstances. "  $ 

Twenty  days  after  Melanchthon  had  sent  the  first  draft  to 
Luther,  the  Confession  still  appears  very  inchoate,  as  compared 
with  the  form  in  which  it  was  presented  to  the  Emperor.  The 
Articles  of  Faith,  in  phraseology,  in  content  and  in  extent,  differ 
widely  from  those  of  the  Confession  as  it  appeared,  June  25th. 
A  brief  description  will  suffice  to  make  the  difference  evident. 
Article  IV.,  which  in  some  sense  corresponds  to  Article  V.  in 
the  completed  Confession,  reads  as  follows:  "The  Holy  Ghost 
is  given  by  means  of  the  Word  and  the  sacraments,  as  Paul 

*  Preface  to  the  German  Corpus  Doctrinae. 
t  C.  E.  IX.,  1050  et  seqq. 
tC  E.  IL,  60. 


56  THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

says :  Faith  cometli  by  hearing.  Here  are  rejected  the  Ana- 
baptists and  the  like  who  despise  the  Word  and  the  sacraments, 
and  think  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  acquired  by  human  prepara- 
tion," Article  V.  treats  of  Justification,  but  with  verbal  and 
material  differences.  Particularly  do  we  notice  durch  Christum, 
"through  Christ,"  instead  of  um  CJiristus  willen,  "for  the  sake 
of  Christ, ' '  which  is  so  characteristic  of  the  Lutheran  conception 
of  Christ's  relation  to  our  forgiveness  and  restoration  to  the 
favor  of  God.  Article  VII.  aims  to  cover  the  content  of 
Articles  VII.  and  VIII.  in  the  completed  Confession.  Of 
Article  VIII.,  on  Baptism,  Professor  Kolde  says:  "Article 
8  has,  manifestly,  a  purpose  entirely  different  from  that 
of  the  article  which  subsequently  took  its  place.  Hence, 
originally,  it  was  not  Melanchthon 's  intention  to  treat  gen- 
erically  of  Baptism  in  the  Confession,  but  only  of  the  neces- 
sity of  Infant  Baptism."  *  In  a  literal  translation  the  article 
reads  as  follows  :  ' '  That  little  children  should  be  baptized,  and 
that  by  Baptism  they  are  presented  to  God  and  are  received 
into  grace.  Here  again  are  rejected  the  Anabaptists,  who  say 
that  Baptism  does  not  profit  children,  and  that  little  children 
are  saved  even  without  Baptism."  The  Article  on  the  Lord's 
Supper  is  as  follows:  "9.  That  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  truly  ['in  the  Supper  among  those  who'  is  interlined] 
and  are  administered  in  the  Supper,  and  those  are  rejected  who 
teach  otherwise."  Kolde  thinks  that  vescentilms,  "to  those  who 
eat,"  was  in  the  original,  but  was  omitted  because  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  translating  it. 

"10.  That  private  absolution  should  be  held  in  the  Church, 
although  in  confession  it  is  not  necessary  that  all  sins  should  be 
enumerated,  for  that  is  impossible."  In  the  articles  on  Civil 
Polity,  on  The  Return  of  Christ  to  Judgment,  and  on  Free-ivill, 
the  differences  between  this  Oldest  Redaction  and  the  Confes- 
sion in  its  final  form  are  great  and  striking.  Of  the  article  on 
The  Return  of  Christ  to  Judgment,  "the  construction  is  entirely 
different,"  remarks  Kolde. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  of  the  chief  Articles  of  Faith  in 
this  Oldest  Redaction,  that  they  contained  much  that  is  ambig- 
uous, vague  and  evasive,  and  that  they  incline  much  more  to  the 
traditional  Koman  Catholic  doctrine  than  does  the  Confession  in 
the  form  in  which  it  was  of^cially  read  and  delivered. 

If  we  turn  to  the  Articles  on  Abuses,  we  find,  indeed,  that  they 
*  Die  Aelteste  Bedaliion,  p.  51. 


THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AIKJSBUKG    CONFESSION.  57 

are  seven  in  number,  and  that  they  treat  in  general  the  same 
subjects  that  are  treated  under  the  head  of  Abuses  in  Part  II. 
of  the  completed  Confession,  but  the  treatment  is  in  many 
particulars  very  different,  and  in  extent  the  articles  are  scarcely 
more  than  two-thirds  of  what  they  are  in  the  completed  Con- 
fession. Still  we  are  not  brought  back  to  that  first  draft  of  the 
Confession  of  which  Melanchthon  writes,  May  11th,  and  which 
was  sent  to  Luther  for  his  inspection.  "We  probably  stand  about 
half  way  between  the  finished  Confession  and  that  first  draft, 
called  by  the  Germans  Der  erste  Entwurf,  Der  fertige  Entwurf, 
Prima  Adumhratio. 

On  this  subject  Professor  Kolde  has  wisely  written  :  ' '  Since 
Melanchthon  liked  better  to  write  Latin  than  German,  and  as, 
since  from  many  indications,  it  may  be  concluded  that  the  Latin 
recension  was  relatively  finished  earlier  than  the  German,  it  is 
quite  probable  that  Luther  saw  only  the  Latin.  However,  against 
this  speaks  the  consideration  that  it  was  the  Elector  who  sent 
the  Apology  to  him,  and  who  must  have  first  read  and  approved 
it.  Accordingly  so  long  as  no  opposing  proof  can  be  adduced, 
it  is  prohably  to  be  concluded  that  Luther  saw  both  recensions, 
in  so  far  as  they  were  finished. 

"But  what  was  at  that  time  really  finished?  As  regards  the 
number  of  articles  seen  by  him,  my  investigations  have  anew 
established  only  this,  namely,  that  Articles  XX.  and  XXI.  were 
yet  wanting.*  IMore  important  is  the  inquiry  about  the  con- 
tent and  shape  of  the  articles  as  they  were  laid  before  him. 
On  this  subject  nothing  can  be  said  with  absolute  certainty,  but 
we  will  be  justified  in  holding  about  the  following  as  the  facts : 

' '  The  comparison  of  Na  (The  Oldest  Redaction)  with  A  (The 
Augsburg  Confession)  proves  conclusively  that  the  articles 
underwent  great  changes  during  the  last  two  or  three  weeks 
before  delivery.  We  cannot  prove  that  Luther  saw  the  form  in 
Na;  much  rather  does  everything  go  to  show  that  the  text  sent 
to  him  underwent  manifold  changes  already  before  Na  was 
finished.  Finally,  in  the  correspondence  between  Augsburg  and 
Coburg  there  is  not  an  iota  of  evidence  that  Luther  exerted  any 
influence  on  the  later  changes,  or  that  any  one  of  the  later 
recensions   was   sent  to   him.      Hence,   the   direct   participation 

*  In  regard  to  Part  II.  it  is  certain  that  it  was  quite  different  from 
what  it  is  in  the  completed  Confession.  Every  article  was  changed  even 
after  May  31st.  May  22d  Melanchthon  was  re\-ising  Art.  XXVII.,  and 
was  probably  writing  for  the  first  time  Article  XXVIII.  See  Brieger  in 
Kirclieng.  Studien,  p.  278.    Heal-Encyc.,^  II.,  p.  244. 


58  THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

of  Luther  in  the  composition  of  the  Confession — about  which 
there  has  been  discussion  from  time  to  time,  finally  again  forty  or 
fifty  years  ago,  more  in  confessional  than  in  scientific  historical 
interest — is  relatively  small.  Luther  did  help  to  draw  up  the 
Torgau  Articles,  and  did  also,  as  is  certainly  evident,  counsel 
with  ]\Ielanchthou  before  the  Diet  on  all  else  that  could  come  into 
consideration,  and  he  even  raised  no  objection  to  what  he  saw 
in  INIay.    But  that  also  is  all. "  * 

The  facts  show  conclusively,  that,  barring  the  "long  and 
rhetorical  Preface,"  the  Apology  verius  Confession,  as  sent  to 
Luther,  ^lay  11th,  did  not  contain  more  than  about  one-half 
as  much  matter  as  is  contained  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  it 
was  read  and  delivered  to  the  Emperor,  June  25th.  Besides, 
judging  from  what  we  find  in  The  Oldest  Redaction,  the  form 
of  all  the  articles  sent  to  Luther,  and,  in  many  cases,  the  matter 
and  the  conception  of  articles,  were  subsequently  so  manifoldly 
and  so  purposefully  changed  and  elaborated  as  to  produce  an 
entirely  different  document.  It  can  therefore  be  truthfully 
affirmed  that  the  Confession,  as  Luther  saw  it  before  its  delivery, 
j  was  only  the  first  draft  of  the  Confession  as  it  was  at  the  time 
!  of  its  delivery.  The  document  was  changed  daily  and  was 
adapted  to  circumstances. f 

4.  Melanchthon  Continues  to  Change. 
Melanchthon  went  on  with  his  changes. $  May  28th  the  Niirn- 
berg  commissioners,  Kress  and  Volkamer,  wrote  home  to  their 
Senate  "that  the  counsellors  and  theologians  of  the  Elector  are 
holding  daily  sessions  on  the  Confession  of  Faith,  with  the 
purpose  of  giving  it  such  a  form  that  it  cannot  be  passed  over, 
but  must  be  heard. "§  Three  days  later  they  write  that  "the 
Saxon  Confession  is  not  yet  completed,"  and  that  they  have 
received   the   articles  in  Latin,   in   so   far   as  they  have   been 

*  Die  Aelteste  Bedalction,  pp.  73-75.  See  also  Brieger,  KircliengescMcht- 
liche  Studien,  p.  278;  Kolde,  Augsh.  Eonf.,  p.  5,  note  6. 

t  C.  E.  II.,  60. 

t  Fikencher,  after  quoting  Luther 's  letter  of  May  15th  to  the  Elector, 
De  Wette,  4.  p.  17,  says:  "But  Melanchthon  was  not  yet  satisfied  with 
it  (the  Confession),  and  almost  up  to  the  moment  of  delivery  he  changed 
so  much  by  additions  and  omissions,  by  remodeling,  and  by  the  introduction 
of  entirely  new  articles,  even  by  the  choice  of  words,  that  a  very  different 
work  resulted,  though  still  based  on  the  Torgau  Articles.  On  each  part,  as 
finished,  Melanchthon  received  the  opinions  of  the  theologians  present.  He 
even  wrote  to  Luther,  May  22d,  for  his  opinion.  But  he  (Luther)  did  not 
see  the  finished  work  imtil  after  it  had  been  delivered  to  the  Emperor." 
Geschichte  des  Eeichstags  zii  Augsburg,  p.  53. 

§  C.  E.  IL,  71. 


THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  59 

brought  together,  but  without  the  Preface  and  the  Conclusiou, 
about  which  there  is  the  greatest  doubt ;  and  that  they  will 
send  the  German  copy,  on  which  improvements  are  daily  being 
made,  so  soon  as  it  is  finished.*  June  8th  these  same  commis- 
sioners write  that  the  Saxons  have  not  yet  finished  the  Preface 
and  the  Conclusion.!  June  15th  they  write:  "The  Saxon 
Confession  of  Faith  is  finished  in  German.  Herewith  we  send 
it  to  you.  It  does  not  yet  have  the  Preface  and  the  Conclusion, 
and,  as  Philip  JMelanchthon  has  stated,  he  has  not  put  any  part 
of  these  into  German,  because  he  thinks  that  this  same  Preface 
and  Conclusion  may  probably  be  presented,  not  alone  in  the 
name  of  the  Elector,  but  in  common  in  the  name  of  all  the 
Lutheran  Princes  and  estates,  as  he  has  already  made  a  change 
in  the  German  Articles,  as  you  will  see :  Namely,  where  in  the 
Latin  it  is  stated,  that  in  the  Electorate  of  Saxony,  this  or  that 
is  preached  and  held,  here  in  the  German  he  has  omitted  the 
Electorate  of  Saxony,  and  has  put  a  common  term  in  its  p'lace, 
which  may  refer  to  all  the  estates. ' '  % 

But  the  Confession  is  not  completed  in  German.  It  does  not 
have  the  Preface  and  the  Conclusion,  nor  Article  XXI. :  Of  the 
Worship  of  Saints.^  "The  Article,  Of  Faith  and  Good  Works, 
placed  last  in  the  German  Confession  is  not  in  the  Latin  Confes- 
sion,"  write  the  Niirnberg  commissioners.  And  Part  II.,  as 
shown  by  the  Spalatin  iManuscript  in  the  Weimar  Archives,  is 
manifoldly  different  from  the  Confession  in  its  completed  form. 
To  say  nothing  about  the  brevity  of  some  of  the  articles,  it  does 
not  contain  Article  VIII.,  Of  The  Power  of  the  Bishops,  in  any 
form.  It  may  possibly  be  that  this  is  the  "Conclusion"  which 
the  Niirnberg  commissioners  say  is  lacking.  ||        Even   in  the 

*  June  3d,  these  Niirnberg  Commissioners  received  also  a  copy  of  the 
Preface  to  the  Latin  Articles.  They  had  both  the  Preface  and  the  Articles 
transcribed  by  Jerome  Ebner's  sons,  and  they  sent  both  to  their  Senate, 
saying,  in  a  letter:  "It  lacks  an  article  or  two  behind,  and  also  the  con- 
clusion, on  which  the  Saxon  theologians  are  still  working. "  C.  E.  78.  This 
Latin  copy,  sent  to  the  Niirnberg  Senate,  was  translated  for  the  Senate  by 
Hieronimus  J.  Baumgartner.  This  translation  is  The  Oldest  Bedaction'of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  about  which  we  have  written  on  pp.  50  et  seqq. 

t  C.  E.  li.,  87. 

t  C.  E.  IL,  105. 

§  Kolde  says:  "The  (21)  Article,  Of  the  Worship  of  Saints,  was  orig- 
inally written  in  Latin.  The  form  that  was  subsequently  placed  in  the 
Spalatin  text  is  only  a  translation  from  the  Latin.  It  appeared  first  in  the 
I.  Marburg  and  then  in  the  French  translation  made  from  that.  The  Ger- 
man recension,  which  weiit  to  Niirnberg  on  the  15th,  did  not  contain  it." 
Engelhardt  says:  "Article  XXI.  was  added  after  June  16th."  Niedner's 
Zcitschrift  (1865),  p.  600. 

II  The  Spalatin  Manuscript  is  regarded  as  the  oldest  form  of  the  German 
Text  of  the  Articles  of  Faith  that  has  come  down  to  us.    In  this,  both  Kolde 


60  THE    COMPOSITION    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

Articles  of  Faith  there  are  numerous,  though  mostly  stylistic, 
differences  between  Spalatin's  Manuscript  and  the  Confession 
as  delivered.  But  Melanchthon  proceeds  with  his  changes  and 
his  adaptations,  so  that  by  the  time  the  Confession  is  delivered 
it  has  become  very  different  from  what  it  is  as  given  in  Spalatin's 
Manuscript,  to  say  nothing  about  the  first  draft,  which  was  sent 
to  Luther,  and  The  Oldest  Redaction  of  May  31st.  The  "long 
and  rhetorical  Preface"  disappears  entirely,  and  a  diplomatic 
common  Preface  is  written  in  German  and  translated  into  Latin 
by  Justus  Jonas.  The  Epilogue  is  added*  and  the  Epilogue- 
Prologue,  beginning,  "This  is  about  the  sum  of  the  doctrine," 
which  connects  Part  I.  of  the  Confession  with  Part  II.,  is  in- 
serted. That  is,  neither  of  these  important  sections  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  appears  yet  in  the  Spalatin  Manuscript,! 
so  late,  say,  as  the  middle  of  June. 

and  Brieger  agree.  The  latter  says:  "Of  Spalatin's  copy,  it  can  only  be 
said  that  it  arose  before  the  15th  of  June. ' '  Zur  Gesckichte  des  Angshurger 
Reichstags  von  1530,  p.  17.  Kolde,  Die  aelteste  Redaction,  pp.  69,  70. 
Brieger  regards  the  I.  Ansbach  as  dating  some  days  later,  p.  18.  The  Spal- 
atin MS.  is  given  by  Forstemann,  I.,  312-343. 

*  C.  R.  II.,  112. 

t  See  Forstemann,  ut  supra,  I.,  322  and  342. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

"VVe  need  not  detain  ourselves  with  any  further  consideration 
of  the  ''long  and  rhetorical  Preface,"  since  that  forms  no  part 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  "We  have  already  seen  that  Part 
II.  of  the  Confession  was  elaborated  by  Melanchthon  out  of 
the  alleged  Torgau  Articles,  but  with  so  many  changes,  that 
their  identity  almost  disappears,  and  the  "Articles  on 
the  Abuses  that  have  been  changed"  are,  to  all  intents  and 
purposes,  new  articles.  It  remains  that  we  should  here  con- 
sider ,the  sources  of  the  twenty-one  Doctrinal  Articles,  as  they 
are  generally  called,  or  according  to  the  title  given  by  Melanch- 
thon in  the  Latin  editio  princeps:  The  Principal  Articles  of 
Faith. 

1.     The  Marhurg  and  the  Schwahach  Articles. 

October  4,  1529,  Luther  wrote  fifteen  Articles  at  Marburg, 
which,  because  of  the  place  of  composition,  are  called  the  Mar- 
burg Articles.*  They  discuss  the  following  subjects:  1.  The 
Trinity;  2.  The  Person  of  Christ;  3.  The  Work  of  Christ;  4. 
Original  Sin;  5-7.  Justification  by  Faith;  8.  The  Spoken  Word; 
9.  Baptism;  10.  Good  Works;  11.  Confession;  12.  The  Magis- 
tracy; 13.  Human  Ordinances;  14.  Infant  Baptism;  15.  The 
Lord's  Supper. t 

But  already,  perhaps  more  than  two  months  earlier,  he  had 
helped  to  write  seventeen  Articles  of  Faith  at  the  command  of 
the  Elector  of  Saxony,  which,  because  they  were  used  at  Schwa- 
bach,  October  16th-18th  following,  are  called  The  Schwahach 
Articles.t  They  discuss  the  following  objects :  1.  The  Trinity ;  2. 
The  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God ;  3.  The  Work  of  Christ ;  4. 
Original  Sin;  5.  Justification  by  Faith;  6.  Faith  the  Gift  of 
God ;  7.  The  Preached  Word ;  8.  The  Two  Sacraments ;  9.  Baptism ; 

*  Luther's  WerTce,  Erl.  Ed.  65,  pp.  88  et  seqq.  Fac  simile  of  the  Original 
in  Stuclien  und  Kritilen  (1883),  pp.  400  et  seqq.-  Kolde,  Augsb.  Konf.,  I. 
Beilage. 

t  Kolde,  Beitrage  sur  BeformationsgescMchte,  pp.  94  et  seqq. 

t  Luther's  own  edition  in  Erl.  Ed.  of  Works,  24:  334  et  seqq.  From  the 
Ulm  MS.  in  Weber,  Krit.  Geschichte,  I.,  Appendix.  On  the  basis  of  the 
Strassburg  Official  Text  in  Kolde,  Augsb.  Konf.,  II.  Beilage. 

(61) 


62       THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

10.  The  Eucharist;  11.  Private  Confession;  12.  The  Christian 
Church;  13.  Christ's  Return  to  Judgment;  14.  The  JMagistracv; 
15.  Monastic  Vows  and  other  Prohibitions;  16.  The  Mass;  17. 
Ceremonies  of  the  Church.  Both  series  of  articles  were  written 
in  German.  Luther  denies  that  he  composed  the  Schwabach 
Articles  alone.  We  may  therefore  conclude  that  he  was  assisted 
in  their  composition  by  JMelanchthon  and  Justus  Jonas,  who 
I  were  his  faithful  helpers  at  "Wittenberg.  Nevertheless,  they 
I  bear  the  characteristic  qualities  of  Luther's  mind,  and  express 
his  views  on  all  the  subjects  embraced  by  them. 

Now  these  two  series  of  articles  were  taken  to  Augsburg  by 
the  Elector  of  Saxony.  The  former  series  is  expressly  men- 
tioned under  the  title:  Acts  and  Decision  of  tJte  Learned  at 
Marhnrg,  Anno  MC.  XXIX.,  as  being  in  the  red  chest,  to  which 
allusion  has  been  already  made.  We  know  that  the  other  was 
taken  thither,  because  we  find  it  employed  by  the  Elector  immedi- 
ately upon  his  arrival  at  Augsburg  as  the  basis  of  his  Confession 
of  Faith  described  in  a  preceding  chapter.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  former  series  was  signed  by  Zwingli  and  his  followers,  as  well 
as  by  Luther  and  his  followers,  at  IMarburg.  The  other  series 
was  not  signed  by  Luther,  nor  by  any  of  the  Wittenberg,  theo- 
logians, but  they  were  subsequently  acknowledged  by  Luther  in 
a  bold  and  defiant  Preface  at  their  appearance  in  print  in 
May,  1530.  If  we  compare  the  tw^o  series  with  each  other,  we 
shall  find  that  the  INIarburg  Articles  express  the  Lutheran 
doctrine  in  mild  and  conciliatory  language.  No  attack  is  made 
upon  any  teaching  or  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
Only  an  allusion  to  the  same  is  made  in  articles  eleven  and 
twelve.  In  the  Schwabach  Articles  the  tone  is  decidedly  polemical 
against  Rome,  as  in  Article  XV.,  where  it  is  declared  "that  the 
doctrine  which  prohibits  marriage  and  ordinary  food  and  drink 
to  priests,  together  with  monastic  life,  and  vows  of  every  kind, 
are  nothing  but  damnable  doctrines  of  devils;"  and  in  Article 
XVI.,  where  the  Mass  is  characterized  as  "before  all  abomina- 
tions." In  Article  IV.  Luther's  doctrine  that  "original  sin  is 
truly  and  properly  sin"  is  brought  out  in  contrast  with  the 
alleged  Zwinglian  view  that  it  is  "only  a  wealmess  or  defect." 
In  Article  X.  Luther  specially  affirmed  his  doctrine  of  the  true 
presence  of  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist 
as  against  "the  other  side,"  the  Zwinglians,  who  "assert"  that 
only  bread  and  wine  are  present. 

Hence,  the  Schwabach  Articles  must  be  regarded  as  a  more 


THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.       63 

positive  and  antithetical  exhibition  of  Luther's  teaching,  than 
Ihe  ^Marburg  Articles,  and  as  corresponding  perfectly  to  the 
state  of  Luther's  and  Melanchthon 's  mind  during  the  Summer 
of  1529. 

When  now  it  became  necessary  to  change  the  "Apology"  into 
a  Confession,  because  of  Eck's  calumniations,  it  was  natural,  as 
well  as  in  accordance  with  Melanchthon 's  spirit,  that  recourse 
should  be  had  to  these  two  series  of  articles,  both  of  which  were 
at  hand.  The  former  he  had  subscribed,  and  the  latter  he  had 
undoubtedly  helped  to  compose.     Both  were  official  documents. 

Moreover,  the  latter  was  titled:  The  Elector  of  Saxony's 
Articles  Concerning  Faith,  and  had  been  employed  by  the  Elec- 
tor in  constructing  the  Confession  of  Faith,  which  he  had  just 
sent  to  the  Emperor.  Propriety  and  consistency  would  quickly 
unite  in  bespeaking  the  use  of  these  documents  in  preparing 
Articles  of  Faith  for  public  recital  and  presentation  to  the 
Emperor.  As  Melanchthon  tells  us  that  he  assumed  nothing  to 
himself,*  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  he  took 
"Articles  of  Faith"  into  the  "Apology"  only  after  consultation 
with  the  Elector  and  his  counsellors.  It  may  be  that  these  ordered 
the  introduction  of  such  articles,  "in  order  that  false  accusations 
might  be  refuted."  In  all  probability  it  was  not  decided  to 
include  Articles  of  Faith  in  the  Apology  until  after  the  recep- 
tion of  Dolzig's  report  from  Innsbruck  of  May  8th,  which  was 
in  the  hands  of  the  Elector  ]\Iay  10th.  From  this  report  it  was 
learned  for  certain  that  the  Emperor  would  come  to  Augsburg 
and  would  at  once  give  attention  to  the  subject  of  religion, 
though  only  a  short  time  could  be  devoted  to  such  matters  at 
the  Diet.f  This  report  would  at  once  be  considered  at  Court, 
and  would  lead  to  the  prompt  adoption  of  measures  to  meet  the 
exigency.  It  was  resolved  to  send  the  Apology  to  Luther,  and 
this  was  done  on  the  eleventh.  It  would  have  been  an  easy 
matter  for  Melanchthon,  after  counseling  with  his  superiors,' 
or  after  having  received  their  order,  to  sketch  Articles  of  Faith, 
such  as  those  must  have  been  which  appeared  in  that  first  draft 

*  Preface  to  Corpus  Boctrinae,  Latin. 

t  Knaake,  Luther's  Antheil,  p.  59.  Forstemann,  Urlundenbuch,  I.,  177 
et  seqq. .  It  was  this  report  that  called  forth  the  following  from  Melanch- 
thon to  Luther,  May  11th:  "Our  Apology  is  sent  to  you,  althoiigh  more 
properly  is  it  a  Confession.  For  the  Emperor  has  not  time  to  hear  prolix 
discussions.  Nevertheless  I  have  said  those  things  which  I  thought  would 
be  specially  profitable  and  proper.  With  this  design  I  have  included  almost 
all  the  Articles  of  Faith,  because  Eek  has  published  against  us  the  most 
diabolical  slanders.  Against  these  I  wished  to  oppose  a  remedy. ' '  C.  R. 
IL,  45. 


64       THE  MATERIALS  USED  I\  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  COXFESSIOX. 

(scarcely  more  than  fifteen  hundred  words),  and  to  be  ready 
with  the  same  in  time  to  meet  the  chronological  conditions  re- 
quired by  his  and  the  Elector's  letter  to  Luther,  May  11th.  The 
brevity  of  the  Apology  verius  Confession  is  based  on  the  fact, 
just  learned,  that  the  Emperor  would  have  no  time  to  hear 
prolix  discussions.  Yet  it  "included  almost  all  the  Articles  of 
Faith,"  though  not  more  than  seventeen  or  eighteen,  all  told, 
and  these  bearing  the  marks  of  haste  in  composition.  To  furnish 
these  Articles  of  Faith,  Melanchthon  would  need  only  to  rear- 
range and  to  condense  the  Elector's  Articles  of  Faith,  that  had 
been  sent  to  the  Emperor,  a  copy  of  which  had  doubtless  been 
kept  by  the  Elector,  and  it  is  a  fact  that  Melanchthon  omitted 
from  the  Schwabach  Articles  the  very  articles  that  had  been 
omitted  by  the  Elector,  namely,  the  fifteenth  and  the  sixteenth ; 
and  the  brevity  of  Melanchthon 's  articles  was  determined  by 
the  information  given  in  Dolzig's  report. 

We  may  therefore  fairly  conclude,  though  we  cannot  prove 
absolutely,  that  the  articnli  fidei  were  introduced  into  the  Apol- 
og3^  May  10th  or  11th.  The  facts,  especially  Melanchthon 's 
letter,  seem  scarcely  to  warrant  the  assumption  of  an  earlier 
date.  But  we  know  certainly  that  they  were  introduced  as  a 
remedium  against  Eck's  calumniations,  and  that  they  are  based 
on  the  Marburg  and  more  especially  on  the  Schwabach  Articles, 
and  that  the  purpose  originated  at  Augsburg,  but  whether  with 
Melanchthon  or  with  the  Electoral  counsellors,  remains  un- 
known. 

2.  The  Relation  of  the  Marhurg  and  Schwaiach  Articles  to  the 
Augshurg  Confession. 
Until  recently  there  were  writers,  both  in  Germany  and  in 
America,  who  tried  to  make  it  appear  that  Luther  Avas  the 
author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  that  Melanchthon  was 
its  composer — that  Luther's  pen  furnished  all  the  matter  for  it 
and  that  Melanchthon 's  pen  gave  it  form  and  style.  But  mod- 
ern historical  criticism  has  placed  the  question  of  the  author- 
ship of  the  immortal  Augustana  in  a  clear  and  unquestionable 
light.  It  has  excluded  Luther  entirely  from  participation  in 
the  composition  of  the  Torgau  Articles,  except  that  he  may 
have  made  suggestions.  It  has  also  shown  that  he  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  inclusion  of  Articles  of  Faith  in  the  Apology, 
and  nothing  to  do  in  any  way  with  the  composition  of  at  least 
five  very  important  Articles  of  Faith  embraced  in  the  Confes- 


THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.       65 

sion ;  while  textual  criticism  has  shown  with  great  accuracy  just 
how  much  material  passed  from  the  ^Marburg  and  the  Schwabach 
Articles  into  the  first  seventeen  articles  of  the  Augustana. 

Here  we  refer  especially  to  the  labors  of  Dr.  Calinich*  and 
Dr.  Knaake,t  who,  by  comparing  article  with  article  and  word 
with  word,  have  forever  settled  the  question,  for  all  impartial 
inquirers,  of  the  relation  of  the  Marburg  and  Schwabach  Articles 
to  the  Doctrinal  Articles  of  the  Confession. 

Dr.  Calinich,  of  Dresden,  constructed  the  following  parallel : 

Augustana.  Schicabach  Articles. 

Article     1   corresponds  to   Article      1 

2  "  "4 

3  "  "  2  and  3 

4:  "  "5 

5  "  "  7  and  8 

6  "  "6 
7,8,14:  "  "  12 
9             "  "9 

10  "  "10 

11  ''  "  11 

12  lacking  in  the  Schwabach  Articles. 

13  corresponds   to   Article     8 

14  implied   in  "  12 

15  corresponds  to      "  17 

16  "  "14 

17  "  "13 

The  author  then  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  four 
last  Articles  of  Part  I.  of  the  Confession,  namely,  18,  19,  20, 
21,  have  no  antecedents  in  the  Schwabach  series;  that  the  for- 
mer follows  the  order  of  the  latter  only  in  Articles:  1,  3,  6,  9, 
10,  11 ;  that  in  the  former,  fifteen  articles  of  the  latter  have 
found  recognition:  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14, 
17 ;  that  five  Articles  of  the  former,  namely :  12,  of  Repentance ; 
18,  of  Free-will;  19,  of  the  Cause  of  Sin;  20,  of  Good  Works, 
and  21,  of  the  Worship  of  Saints,  are  not  found  in  the  Schwabach 
series;  that  in  the  composition  there  have  been  expansions  and 
elaborations :  Article  III.  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  embraces 
2  and  3  of  the  Schwabach  series ;  Article  V.  of  the  Confession, 
embraces  Articles  7  and  8  of  the  Schwabach  series;  while,  on 
the  contrary.  Article  12  of  the  Schwabach  series  unites  Articles 
7,  8,  and  14  of  the  Confession. 

*  Luther  2md  die  Augshurgische  Confession,  1861. 
"![  Ltither's  Antheil   an   der  Augsh.    Conf.,    1863. 


^ 


QQ      THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION, 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Melanchthon  made  absolutely  no 
use  of  Articles  XV.  and  XVI.  of  the  Schwabach  series  in  the 
composition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  that  there  are 
five  articles  of  the  Confession  that  are  entirely  independent  of 
the 'Schwabach  series.  Calinich  has  also  examined  in  detail  each 
of  the  first  seventeen  Doctrinal  Articles  of  the  Confession  in 
connection  with  the  corresponding  article  of  the  Schwabach 
series,  and  has  shown  the  points  of  agreement  and  the  points 
of  difference.  But  we  cannot  transfer  his  work  to  these  pages. 
Suffice  it  to  say  that  he  has  sho^^^l  how  little,  rather  than  how 
much,  was  transferred  from  the  two  older  series  of  Articles  to 
the  Aiigustana.  He  gives  the  result  of  his  comparison  as  follows : 
r  "1.  The  Schwabach  Articles  were  taken  as  the  foundation 
I  of  Part  I.  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Articles  12,  18,  19,  20, 
21  excepted. 

I  "2.  In  the  re-writing  changes  were  made,  which  in  part  have 
reference  to  the  order  of  the  separate  articles,  and  in  part  con- 
sist of  abbreviations  and  expansions. 

' '  3.  The  changes  introduced  are  to  be  explained  by  reference 
to  the  different  purpose  of  the  rewriting,  and  are  unessential 
in  their  nature.  In  a  word,  we  nowhere  meet  with  a  doctrine 
which  stands  at  all  in  contradiction  to  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples laid  do^^Ti  by  Luther  in  the  Schwabach  Articles. '  '* 

Dr.  Knaake  made  a  much  more  minute  verbal  comparison  than 
was  made  by  Dr.  Calinich,  but  we  cannot  transfer  it  to  our 
pages,  chiefly  because  of  the  difference  between  the  German  and 
the  English  languages.  He,  too,  confines  his  comparison  to  the 
first  seventeen  Articles  of  the  Confession,  and  declares  that 
Luther's  participation  in  the  composition  of  the  Confession 
does  not  extend  beyond  those  Articles.  According  to  his  showing 
there  are  no  antecedents  for  Articles  VIII.  and  XIV.  of  the 
Confession;  only  a  few  words  passed  from  the  Marburg  and 
Schwabach  Articles  to  Articles  I.,  II.,  III.,  VI.,  XI.,  XII.,  of 
the  Confession;  the  damnatory  clauses,  and  all  that  appeals  to 
the  teaching  of  the  early  Church  and  of  the  Fathers,  Article  I. 
excepted,  appear  for  the  first  time  in  the  Confession;  Articles 
IX.  and  X.  are  much  shorter  than  the  corresponding  articles  in 
the  Schwabach  series;  that  by  actual  enumeration  in  the  Ger- 
man, if  we  have  not  miscounted,  only  438  words  passed  from 
the  Marburg  and  the  Schwabach  series  into  the  first  seventeen 
of  the  Confession,  which  in  these  articles  contains  about  1600 

*  Pp.  25-26. 


THE  MATERIALS  USED  IX  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBUUG  CONFESSION.       67 

words  as  given  in  Tschaekert 's  Die  V nverdnderte  Augsbiirgische 
yKonfession,  that  is,  considerably  more  than  two-thirds  of  the 
words  of  these  seventeen  articles  are  the  words  chosen  by 
i  ]\Ielanclithon,  though  it  is  not  to  be  concluded  from  this  numeri- 
cal difference  in  the  words  used,  that  the  influence  either  of 
Luther  or  of  ]\Ielanchthon  on  the  Confession  can  be  mathemati- 
I  cally  determined.  Yet  such  an  enumeration  show^s  to  a  demon- 
stration that  Melanchthon  used  his  materials  in  an  entirely  inde- 
pendent way,  so  that  they  formed  the  hasis,  and  only  the  hasis, 
of  this  first  part  of  the  Confession,  so  that  we  may  conclude  that 
I  the  foundation  of  Part  I.,  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  is  the 
'  work  of  Luther,  but  that  the  superstructure  is  the  w^ork  of  Mel- 
anchthon, and  whatever  superiority — and  who  can  estimate  its 
j  greatness? — the  Augsburg  Confession  has  over  the  Schwabach 
I  Articles,  is  due  to  IMelanchthon,  and  the  superiority  is  not  only 
that  of  form  and  style.  It  enters  into  the  contents,  and  is  especi- 
'  ally  prominent  in  the  adaptation  of  the  contents  of  the  older 
articles  to  new  needs  and  to  new  conditions.  Hence  we  agree  sub- 
stantially with  Dr.  Knaake,  who  says:  "In  regard  to  the  con- 
tents, it  is  to  be  remarked  that  nearly  all  the  Articles  of  the 
antecedents  are  worked  up  into  the  Confession,  though  it  is  not 
to  be  denied  that  there  are  differences.  But  this  can  be  satisfac- 
torily explained  by  reference  to  the  difference  in  occasion  and  in 
purpose.  So,  especially  the  additions  and  the  omissions  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  For  example :  That  in  most  of  its  articles 
there  is  added  a  repudiation  of  heresies,  w^hereas  only  a  few  are 
mentioned  in  the  Schwabach  Articles,  cannot  surprise  us,  since 
the  evangelicals  at  Augsburg  wished  to  present  their  agree- 
ment with  the  common  Christian  Church,  rather  than  to  fortify 
their  doctrine  from  the  Scripture.  In  this  way  is  explained  the 
appeal  in  the  Confession  to  the  Church  Fathers.  But,  despite 
such  differences,  the  relationship  of  our  articles  to  each  other  is 
clearly  manifest, ' '  *  that  is,  in  the  first  seventeen,  or  rather, 
should  we  saj^  in  fifteen  out  of  the  twenty-one  Articles  of  Faith, 
since  Articles  VIII.  and  XIV.  are  not  derived  from  the  four- 
teenth Schwabach  Article,  though  they  may  have  been  suggested 
by  it.  But,  inasmuch  as  the  essential  thing  in  Article  XIV.  is  the 
rite  vocatus,  it  may  be  doubted  as  to  whether  even  a  suggestion 
in  regard  to  that  Article  came  from  anything  found  in  the 
Schwabach  Articles.  And,  as  for  Articles:  XVIIL,  Of  Free- 
will: XIX.,  Of  the   Cause  of  Sin;  XX.,   Of  Faith  and  Good 

*P.  27.. 


'68       THE  MATP:RIALS  used  in  composing  the  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

Works ;  XXI.,  Of  the  Worship  of  Saints,  together  with  the  Epi- 
logue-Prologue, in  all,  in  extent  of  matter  nearly  one-half  of  the 
doctrinal  part,  and  in  importance  and  value  equal  to  any  other 
four  articles, — for  these  four  articles  it  has  never  been  pretended 
that  there  are  antecedents  in  the  Schwabach  Articles,  not  even  by 
way  of  suggestion.  They  are  purely  of  Melanchthonian  author- 
ship. 

We  must  conclude,  therefore,  that  the  Marburg  and  the 
Schwabach  Articles,  the  former  wholly  from  the  pen  of  Luther, 
the  latter  in  part  from  his  pen,  stand  as  the  strong  foundation 
on  which  fifteen,  or,  at  the  utmost,  seventeen  doctrinal  articles  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  are  based,  and  furnish  not  a  little  of 
the  materials  which  Melanchthon,  the  master-builder,  wrought 
into  the  superstructure  of  these  articles.  But  he  made  such 
changes  in  the  use  of  the  materials  thus  furnished,  by  omissions, 
by  additions,  by  adaptations,  by  the  introduction  of  new  thoughts 
and  by  the  refinements  of  style,  as  cannot  be  described  in  words. 
They  can  be  understood  and  appreciated  only  when  we  compare 
the  Augsburg  Confession  article  by  article  with  its  antecedents. 

But  this  relationship  must  be  understood  as  confined  strictly 
to  Part  I.  of  the  Confession.  The  Marburg  and  the  Schwabach 
Articles  had  absolutely  nothing  to  do  with  Part  II.  of  the  Con- 
fession. That  part  rests  entireh^  on  the  Torgau  Articles,  which, 
by  innumerable  omissions,  additions  and  adaptations,  were 
shaped  into  the  Articles  on  Abuses,  which  at  the  time  were 
regarded  as  constituting  the  more  important  part  of  the  Con- 
fession. 

3.     The  Author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

Who  is  the  author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  sense  of 
' '  one  who  composes  or  writes  a  book ;  a  composer  as  distinguished 
from  an  editor,  translator,  or  compiler"?  The  facts  of  history, 
and  the  critical  comparison  of  the  finished  product  with  the 
antecedents  named,  force  the  conclusion  that  Philip  Melanch- 
thon is  the  author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  exactly  in  the 
sense  in  which  we  say  that  William  Shakespeare  is  the  author  of 
Julius  CcBsar,  that  John  Milton  is  the  author  of  Paradise  Lost, 
that  Edward  Gibbon  is  author  of  The  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  Each  of  these  distinguished  authors  gathered 
certain  materials  together  and  kept  them  well  in  hand.  Each 
arranged  his  materials  in  a  manner  peculiar  to  himself  and 
adapted  them  to  the  end  in  view,  added  new  thoughts  and  gave 


THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.       69 

the  whole  the  impress  of  his  own  genius.  As  a  consequence  each 
produced  something  new,  something  which  did  not  previously 
have  existence,  though  not  something  absolutely  original  in  its 
matter,  since  absolute  originality  does  not  appear  in  the  work 
of  any  human  author — it  is  not  found  in  the  theology  of  Luther 
nor  in  that  of  Augustine,  nor  in  that  of  Paul.  Luther's  theology 
is  that  of  Augustine,  of  St.  Bernard,  of  Peter  Lombard,  of 
Thomas  Aquinas,  of  William  Occam,  with  certain  eliminations 
and  evangelical  additions.  He  was  a  great  religious  genius,  but 
none  the  less  did  he  adopt  and  adapt  the  theological  and  religious 
thoughts  of  other  great  men  who  had  gleaned  in  the  same  field. 
IMelanchthon  was  not  Luther's  equal  in  the  sphere  of  religion, 
but  he  was  vastly  his  superior  in  the  realm  of  theological  learn- 
ing. He  could  not  have  written  the  Small  Catechism;  neither 
could  Luther  have  written  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Each  had 
his  own  transcendent  gifts  and  each  used  his  own  gifts  with 
transcendent  success.  As  Luther 's  classic  monument  is  the  Small 
Catechism,  so  IMelanchthon 's  classic  monument  is  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  In  the  erection  of  that  monument  he  was  not  an 
editor,  a  translator,  a  compiler,  but  an  author. 

At  Augsburg,  Melanchthon  sought  to  bring  into  summary 
statement  the  doctrines  common  to  the  Evangelical  theologians — 
the  doctrines  which  he  had  exhibited  in  the  Loci,  and  in  the 
Visitation  Articles,  and  which  are  found  in  his  own  and  in 
Luther's  many  doctrinal  discussions,  and  in  Luther's  sermons 
and  postils.  It  was  not  his  design  to  originate  new  doctrines, 
but  avowedly  to  restate  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church  of 
Christ.  His  confessional  re-statement  of  the  chief  doctrines  of 
Christianity  was  something  as  distinctly  new  in  the  life  and 
history  of  the  German  Reformation  as  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence was  something  new  in  the  life  and  history  of  the  Amer- 
ican people.  The  Augsburg  Confession  created  an  ecclesiastical 
organization,  just  as  the  Declaration  of  Independence  created  a 
political  organization.  As  the  latter  defined  the  political  rights 
and  principles  of  the  patriots  who  had  fought  at  Bunker  Hill, 
so  the  former  defined  the  religious  rights  and  principles  of  the 
Lutherans  who  had  protested  at  Speyer.  Each  document  is 
something  new,  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, taken  as  a  whole,  and  as  a  conception,  is  vastly  different 
from  the  Schwabach  Articles,  vastly  different  from  any  creed 
or  confession  of  faith  that  had  previously  existed  or  that  has 
since  come  into  existence,  vastly  different  from  anything  that 


70      THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

had  been  written  by  Luther,  or  previously  by  Melanehthon — 
something  wholly  sui  generis,  though  .Melanehthon  had  written 
the  Torgau  Articles. 

But  some  dogmaticians,  or  those  who  have  reflected  the  dog- 
matic temper,  or  those  who  have  borrowed  the  Flacianist  calum- 
niations, or  those  who  have  superficially  examined  the  facts,  have 
sought  to  assign  Melanehthon  a  subordinate  place  in  the  prepara- 
tion for  and  in  the  composition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
Quite  different  is  the  conclusion  reached  by  those  Lutheran 
historians  who  have  taken  counsel  of  the  facts,  and  have  allowed 
to  the  facts  their  just  weight.  Matthes,  who  wrote  a  Life  of  Mel- 
anchthon,  and  also  an  excellent  work  on  Symholics,  says:  "Per- 
haps no  writing  ever  gave  its  author  so  much  solicitude  as  this, 
in  which  every  sentence  and  every  word  was  most  carefully 
pondered."*  And  Dr.  Carl  Schmidt,  Melanehthon 's  most  learned 
and  impartial  biographer,  after  following  the  composition  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  from  its  beginning  to  its  end,  con- 
cludes thus:  "Such  is  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  has  be- 
come so  famous  in  history.  Although  it  was  discussed  by  all 
the  theologians  present;  although  even  the  civil  counsellors  and 
the  delegates  added  their  word,  and  the  Saxon  Chancellor  knew 
how  '  to  arrange  it  before  and  behind ' ;  yet  was  it  very  especially 
the  work  of  Melanehthon,  and  belongs  to  the  most  important 
written  by  him.  Everywhere  it  bears  the  impress  of  his  spirit. 
With  astonishing  clearness  and  simplicity  it  presents  the  doc- 
trine. Scholastic  subtlety  and  terminology  are  avoided,  so  that  it 
can  be  understood  by  the  most  unlearned,  nor  is  it  susceptible 
of  being  misunderstood  or  falsely  interpreted.  In  vain  would 
you  seek  a  trace  of  a  mind  filled  with  hate  or  even  acting  under 
excitement.  The  calmness  and  moderation  with  which  the  whole 
is  treated  must  take  from  opponents  all  pretext  for  complaint 
of  unnecessary  violence.  All  the  doctrines  are  led  back  in  the 
most  logical  way  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  justification  by 
faith,  and  the  same  principle  furnishes  the  rule  by  which  to  judge 
of  ceremonies. ' '  f 

And  Weber,  who  wrote  the  most  critical  and  exact  history  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  that  has  ever  been  penned,  has  said: 
"Now  is  the  time  to  examine  the  question,  'Is  Melanehthon  to  be 
regarded  as  the  author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession?'     After 

*  Symbolil',  p.  56.  In  the  Life  he  says:  "Diese  Schrift  von  Melanehthon 
ganz  allein  verfassten."  And  again:  "From  May  11th  to  June  24th, 
Luther  was  not  again  consulted."  Jansen,  GescMchte  des  Deutschen  Volkes, 
17th  and  18th  Auflage,  III.,  184-5,  7iote  1. 

t  Philipp  Melanehthon,  p.  207. 


THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.       71 

what  I  have  already  said  touching  the  manner  and  method  by 
which  he  prepared  the  Confession,  the  question  may  be  regarded 
as  settled.  For  if  he  is  the  author  of  a  writing  to  whom  the 
matter  and  the  wording  belong,  or  if  in  a  manner  peculiar  to 
himself  he  has  worked  up  the  materials  found  at  hand,  how  can 
the  authorship  of  the  Confession  be  denied  to  Melanchthon? 
Grant  that  he  had  before  him  the  materials  in  the  seventeen 
Schwabach  Articles,  or,  as  I  have  shown  above,  those  of  Electoral 
Saxony,  and  the  essays  on  religion  furnished  by  the  other  theo- 
logians, did  not  he  elaborate  them  in  an  original  manner,  and 
from  the  seed  produce  the  beautiful  tree,  with  its  shady  branches 
and  fruit  ?  Is  La  Fontaine  or  Racine  or  Corneille  to  be  dispar- 
aged, because  the  first  borrowed  his  materials  mostly  from  other 
fabulists,  and  the  others  from  history  ?  Or,  to  give  another  illus- 
tration :  Will  anyone  dare  to  say,  without  blushing,  that  Mascov, 
Bunau  and  Schmidt  are  not  authors,  but  that  they  only  brought 
the  drafts  and  materials  of  history  into  a  particular  form  ?  Such 
is  the  note  which  so  many  theologians  and  historians  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  strike  since  the  composition  of  the  Bergic  Form 
of  Concord.  Men  have  been  at  great  pains  and  have  invented 
empty  arguments  to  circumscribe  Melanchthon 's  part  in  the.  pro- 
duction of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  to  depreciate  his  work,  and 
to  reduce  it  to  a  clerkship.  Melanchthon  is  not  to  be  regarded  as 
the  author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  is  to  be  regarded  as 
having  brought  it  into  a  particular  form  out  of  the  seventeen 
Articles,  which  the  illustrious  man  of  God,  Herr  Luther,  had 
previously  drawn  up  ?  Luther,  Jonas  and  Bugenhagen  wrought 
with  Melanchthon  on  the  Confession  before  he  went  to  Torgau 
— Luther  sent  memoranda  to  Augsburg — Jonas  translated  the 
Confession  into  German  (which  translation  is  to  be  greatly  pre- 
ferred to  the  original  Latin),  and  gave  Melancht]jon  opportunity 
still  further  to  change  his  Latin  draft,  and  to  express  its  con- 
tents better — these  and  similar  fancies,  borrowed  either  from  a 
false  historical  conception,  or  being  absolutely  without  historical 
foundation,  are  the  hollow  echoes  of  the  anti-Philippistic  times, 
when  Luther's  zealous  disciples  envied  and  disparaged  Melanch- 
thon's  fame.  And  I  reckon  it  among  the  consequences  of  the 
Bergic  Form  of  Concord,  to  which,  as  to  a  s^nnbolically  binding 
treatise  on  the  doctrines  defined  in  it,  I  accord  full  right,  that 
since  that  time,  it  has  been  the  fashion  to  belittle  and  to  dispar- 
age the  merit  of  Melanchthon."  * 

*  Kritische  GeschicJite,  I.,  47,  48. 


72       THE  MATERIALS  USED  IN  COMPOSING  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

None  the  less  clear  and  distinct  is  Planck,  whose  profound  re- 
searches and  independence  of  judgment  give  authority  to  his 
opinions.  He  says:  "By  May  11th,  Melanchthon  had  finished 
a  complete  draft.  This  was  sent  by  the  Elector  on  that  date  to 
Coburg.  But  that  draft  was  changed  so  much  from  time  to  time, 
up  almost  to  the  moment  of  delivery,  by  additions  and  omissions, 
by  elaboration  and  by  the  introduction  of  entirely  new  articles, 
that  a  wholly  different  work  arose,  to  which,  however,  the  Torgau 
Articles  furnished  the  foundation.  It  may  be  that  Melanchthon 
was  led  to  some  of  these  changes  and  additions  by  the  drafts 
brought  to  Augsburg  by  the  theologians  of  the  other  Protestant 
Estates.  Yet  he  did  not  make  so  much  use  of  them  that  it  can 
be  said  that  he  only  compiled  the  Confession  out  of  these  different 
essays.  It  is  also  true  that  the  judgment  of  the  other  theologians 
was  passed  upon  each  finished  part  of  the  work  (see  Camerarius, 
Vita  Mel.,  ed.  Strobel,  p.  120),  but  it  would  be  not  only  wrong, 
but  foolish,  to  say  that  the  finished  Confession  is  not  his  work, 
but  the  joint  work  of  those  theologians.  Yet  such  foolishness 
has  been  indulged  in  by  the  man 's  enemies. ' '  * 

Schopf  writes :  ' '  The  Modest  Melanchthon  counseled  with  the 
other  theologians  who  were  present  at  Augsburg,  and  with 
Luther,  who  had  remained  at  Coburg,  yet  he  was  especially  the 
author,  and  only  he,  with  his  gentleness,  was  qualified  for  the 
work. ' '  t 

Times  almost  without  number  does  Melanchthon  speak  of  him- 
self as  the  author  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  no  one  ever 
disputed  the  correctness  of  his  representation  so  long  as  he  lived. 
And  his  friend  and  biographer,  Camerarius,  writing  of  the  com- 
position of  the  Confession,  says:  "After  the  most  careful  de- 
liberation a  writing  was  composed  by  the  labor,  study,  care  and 
immense  toil  of  JNIelanchthon,  which  contains  in  several  chapters 
a  statement  and  explanation  of  all  the  doctrine.  .  .  .  When  the 
entire  burden  was  placed  upon  him  and  was  borne  by  him,  it 
was  accomplished  with  the  most  laudable  care,  so  that  nothing 
might  be  done  to  wound  his  own  conscience  before  God,  or  to 
injure  his  esteem  before  men,  or  to  seem  to  bring  destruction  to 
the  state."  $ 

John  Brentz  wrote  at  Augsburg,  June  24,  1530:  "We  have 
drawn  up  an  epitome  of  our  doctrine,  Philip  Melanclitlion  being 

*  GescMcMe  der  Prof.  Theol.,  3.  p.  41,  note. 

t  Die  Symb.  Biicher,  p.  26. 

t  Vita  PhiUppi  Melanchthonis,  Ed.  Strobel,  pp.  120,  121. 


THE  MATP:RIALS  used  in  composing  the  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION.       73 

its   author. ' '  *    And  those  who   buried  Melanchthon   inscribed 
on  the  lid  of  his  coffin :  Autor  Confessionis  Augustanae. 

But  when  Melanchthon  and  his  Augsburg  associates  had  passed 
away,  and  a  generation  of  passionate  zealots  had  come  into  place, 
who  were  more  intent  upon  urging  their  own  interpretation  of 
the  Confession,  than  upon  ascertaining  its  history,  it  became  the 
fashion  in  places  to  disparage  JNIelanchthon  in  the  Church  which 
he  had  helped  to  create,  and  to  name  Luther  the  author  of  the 
matter  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  to  call 
^Melanchthon  the  author  of  its  form,  of  its  rhetoric,  of  its  style. 
That  is,  the  profound  scholar,  the  accomplished  writer,  the 
learned  theologian,  the  trusted  counsellor  of  Princes  did  the 
work  of  an  amanuensis  at  Augsburg !  The  ~p<ot()v  (^'ludo^  once 
started,  it  suited  the  taste  and  temper  of  a  dogmatic  age  to  keep 
it  moving,  though  there  have  ahvays  been  those  who  had  the 
manly  courage  to  protest  against  the  great  injustice. 

Happily,  during  the  last  seventy  or  eighty  years,  the  materials 
for  writing  a  correct  history  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  have 
been  more  and  more  brought  to  light.  Historical  criticism  has 
done  its  noble  work;  and  we  are  far  enough  away  from  the 
rivalries  and  strifes  and  bitternesses  of  the  sixteenth  century  to 
be  able  to  regard  the  transactions  at  Augsburg  ^\^th  clearer  vision 
than  the  Epigoni  could  employ,  since  they  were  compelled  to 
work  in  the  shadow  of  the  men  who  made  the  25th  of  June,  1530, 
the  birthday  of  a  new  era  in  the  Church  of  Christ  on  earth. 

The  discovery  of  the  "long  and  rhetorical  Preface"  has  put 
to  flight  forever  the  figment  that  the  "Articles  of  Faith"  con- 
stitute the  Preface  of  which  Melanchthon  writes  to  Luther  on 
the  fourth  of  May.f  And  the  discovery  of  Eck's  404  Articles 
has  made  it  indisputably  certain  that  Articles  of  Faith  were  in- 
troduced at  Augsburg  without  consultation  with  Luther,  that  is, 
on  the  motion  of  Melanchthon  himself,  or  at  the  command  of  his 
superiors;  and  we  have  seen  the  limited  extent  to  which  the 
Schwabach  Articles  were  used  in  Part  I.  of  the  Confession,  and 
as  for  Part  II.,  that  is  out  and  out  the  work  of  Melanchthon, 
though  he  probably  received  suggestions  from  Luther  at  Witten-  ^ 
berg  and  at  Coburg,  hut  never  afterwards. 

*  C.  E.  II.,  124.  t  C.  E.  II.,  39. 


J 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE  DELIVERY  OF  THE  AUGSBURG   CONFESSION. 

Early  on  the  morning  of  June  15th,  the  Princes  assembled 
at  the  Rathaus  in  Augsburg  to  arrange  for  the  reception  of 
the  Emperor.  They  spent  several  hours  in  disputing  over  ques- 
tions of  rank  and  precedence.  Then,  at  two  o'clock,  they  pro- 
ceeded to  the  Lecha  to  meet  the  Emperor,  and  to  escort  him 
into  the  city,  which  he  entered  between  eight  and  nine  o'clock 
P.  M.,  and  then  proceeded  to  the  episcopal  palace,  which  had 
been  made  ready  for  his  reception.  Here  he  detained  the  Pro- 
testant Princes  for  about  two  hours,  haranguing  them  for  having 
allowed  their  preachers  to  preach,  and  commanding  them  to  join 
the  Corpus  Christi  procession  the  next  day.  The  excitement 
was  so  great  that  some  of  the  Protestants  were  called  out  of 
bed  and  informed  of  what  was  going  on.* 

1.     Preliminary  Movements. 

The  next  morning,  at  seven  o'clock,  the  Protestant  Princes 
(the  Elector  of  Saxony  excepted,  who  was  indisposed  as  a  con- 
sequence of  the  late  detention  by  the  Emperor  the  previous 
evening)  appeared  before  the  Emperor  and  gave  reasons  why 
they  could  not  interdict  preaching,  nor  enter  the  procession. 
Here  they  were  detained  until  ten  o'clock.!  Then  they  visited 
the  indisposed  Elector,  and  there  resolved  to  make  reply  in 
writing  to  the  requisitions  of  the  Emperor.  Chancellor  Briick 
then  wrote  a  long  opinion,  giving  reasons  why  the  evangelical 
Princes  could  not  interdict  preaching;  and  the  Saxon  theolog- 
ians prepared  a  Bedenken  on  the  question  "Whether  the 
Elector  and  other  Protestant  Princes  can  take  part  in  the  pro- 
cession of  Corpus  Christi  day  without  doing  violence  to  con- 
sciences." $ 

On  the  morning  of  June  17th,  the  Princes  presented  to  the 
Emperor  their  reason  for  refusing  to  interdict  preaching.     And 

*  See  Forstemann 's  Urlunden'biicli,  I.,  p.  263;  Schirrmacher 's  Brief e 
und  Aden,  54,  57,  59.     C.  E.  II.,  106. 

t  Schirrmacher,  ut  supra,  pp.  61,  482.     C.  R.  II.,  111. 

t  See  these  papers  in  Forstemann 's  Url-undenbuch,  I.,  283  et  seqq. ; 
Schirrmacher,  p.  64.     C.  R.  II.,  p.  110. 

(74) 


THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  75 

that  day  Adam  Weiss  preached  before  the  Elector,  and  John 
Rurer,  under  instruction  from  Margrave  George,  preached  in 
the  Church  of  Saint  Catharine.*  In  the  afternoon  of  this  day 
Melanchthon  had  a  conference  with  the  imperial  secretaries, 
Schlepper  and  Valdesius.  Here  he  declared  that  the  difference 
between  the  Protestants  and  the  Catholics  had  reference  chiefly 
to  Priestly  Celibacy,  to  Private  Mass  and  to  the  Communion  in 
both  kinds,  t 

In  the  forenoon  of  the  eighteenth  the  Protestants  assembled 
at  the  Rathaus  to  hear  the  imperial  decision  in  regard  to  the 
discontinuance  of  preaching.  They  made  reply,  and  at  first 
refused  obedience  to  the  imperial  mandate.  Finally  it  was  ar- 
ranged that  preaching  should  be  discontinued  on  both  sides,! 
and  yet  Adam  Weiss  preached  on  that  day  before  the  Elector. 
Melanchthon  had  another  interview  with  Valdesius.  Here  it  was 
proposed  to  settle  the  dissension  without  having  the  Confession 
read.  Melanchthon  promised  to  consider  the  matter.  §  In  the 
evening  the  imperial  interdict  of  preaching  was  proclaimed. 

We  thus  see  that  the  three  days  immediately  following  the 
Emperor's  entrance  into  the  city  were  occupied  almost  exclusively 
with  the  matter  of  the  Protestant  preaching.  Hence  Melanch- 
thon could  write  :  ' '  This  matter  was  in  dispute  three  days ' ' — 
"This  matter  was  then  in  dispute  three  days" — ''At  once 
he  (the  Emperor)  forbade  ours  to  preach.  As  they  did  not 
immediately  obey,  the  dispute  lasted  three  days. "  |  [  During  these 
three  days  the  theologians  were  mostly  engaged  in  preparing 
Bedenken  on  various  questions,  in  preaching  and  in  holding  in- 
terviews, and  so  active  were  they  with  their  pens  that  he  who 
looks  at  the  documents  prepared  by  them  during  these  three  days, 
as  they  are  given  by  Forstemann  and  Schirrmacher,  simply  won- 
ders how  so  much  could  have  been  done  and  written  in  so  short  a 
time.  And  yet  the  Confession  had  almost  dropped  out  of  con- 
sideration, for  not  once  in  all  these  documents,  including  two 
letters  written  by  the  Niirnberg  commissioners  June  16th,  do  we 
find  a  word  about  the  Confession.  Indeed,  we  know  that  work 
on  the  Confession  was  suspended,  and  that  it  was  in  danger  of 
being  abandoned.!! 

*  Schirrmacher,  p.  484 ;  Forstemann 's  Urlimdenbuch,  I.,  p.  268 ;  Miiller, 
p.  545;   Pfeilschmidt,  p.  55. 

t  Schmidt,  PMlipp  Melanchthon,  p.  195.    C.  E.  II.,  p.  122. 

t  Schirrmacher,  p.  58  et  seqq. ;  Pfeilschmidt,  p.  55. 

§  Schmidt,  p.  196. 

||C.  E.  II.,  pp.  117,  118;  Bindseil's  Supplementa  Melanchthonis,  p.  61. 

H  Schmidt,  p.  196;  C.  E.  XXVI.,  209,  210;  C.  E.  II.,  112;  Eealencycl.,^ 
p.  249. 


76  THE   DELIVERY    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

The  next  day,  June  19th,  which  was  Sunday,  the  Niirnberg 
commissioners,  in  a  letter  to  their  Senate,  say  that  the  Epilogue 
to  the  Confession  has  not  yet  been  prepared,  and  that  Melanch- 
thon  is  contemplating  a  briefer  statement.*  On  this  day  i\Iel- 
anchthon  wrote  several  letters,  and  Brentz  a  long  one  to  Isen- 
mann,  and  yet  neither  of  them  speaks  of  any  work  having  been 
recently  done  on  the  Confession. 

2.  Opening  of  the  Diet. 
We  now  come  to  JMonday,  June  20th.  At  seven  o'clock 
in  the  morning  the  Elector  and  other  Princes  went  to 
the  palace  and  attended  the  Emperor  to  the  Cathedral, 
where  Mass  was  held  "prior  to  the  opening  of  the  imperial 
proposition,"  The  Elector,  as  Arch-Marshal  of  the  Empire,  car- 
ried the  sword  before  the  Emperor,  and  with  other  Princes,  both 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  sat  with  him  in  the  choir  of  the  church 
on  the  right  side,  sixteen  in  all.f  The  Mass  was  celebrated  by 
the  Archbishop  of  INIayence.  This  was  followed  by  a  long  ora- 
tion in  Latin,  delivered  by  the  Papal  Nuncio,  Vincentius  Pimpi- 
nelli,  Bishop  of  Rossin.$  Then  the  Offertorium  was  sung  and  the 
Da  Paceni  was  kissed,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  bearing  the  sword.  § 
The  services  of  worship  being  now  ended,  the  Emperor,  attended 
by  the  Princes  and  orders  of  the  Empire,  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
bearing  a  dra^^m  sword,  went  to  the  Bathaus.  Here  now  the 
Diet  was  formally  opened  and  the  Imperial  Proposition  was 
read.  1 1  The  first  point  had  reference  to  the  Turkish  War,  and 
does  not  concern  us  in  this  narrative.  The  second  discusses  the 
affairs  of  religion  as  they  exist  "in  some  parts  of  Germany."  It 
recites  how  the  Emperor,  "as  the  supreme  advocate,  and  the 
watchful  and  earnest  defender  of  the  orthodox  faith,  of  the 
Christian  religion  and  of  the  Catholic  Church,  in  order  that  he 
might  apply  the  remedy  in  time,  had  summoned  the  Diet  of 
Worms,"  had  instituted  measures  for  quieting  the  distractions 
and  reconciling  animosities.  But  the  Decree  had  not  been  obeyed. 
As  a  consequence,  the  way  was  opened  for  the  entrance  of  many 

*  C.  R.  II.,  112. 

t  See  Coelestin  I.,  103,  104,  and  .7.  J.  Miiller,  p.  560,  where  names  and 
circumstances  are   given. 

X  See  what  purports  to  be  Pimpiuelli  's  Oration,  in  Coelestin,  I.,  pp. 
105-115. 

§  During  the  Mass  in  the  church  the  sword  was  borne  by  Joacliim  von 
Pappenheim,  hereditary  Marshal  of  the  Empire.  See  Coelestin,  I.,  llSfc,  and 
J.  J.  Miiller,  p.  562. 

II  Coelestin,  I.,  1156;  J.  J.  Miiller,  p.  563. 


THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  77 

evils  and  distresses  and  of  diverse  and  opposing  views  in  the 
Church.  That  he  might  gain  a  proper  knowledge  of  the  situa- 
tion and  might  remove  the  schism  and  pacify  the  minds  of  men, 
he  had  made  a  long  and  dangerous  journey.  He  entertains  the 
hope  that  by  his  presence  peace  and  concord  will  be  restored. 
He  therefore  "requests  the  Electors,  Princes  and  all  the  Estates 
of  the  Empire  to  present,  written  in  Latin  and  in  German,  their 
opinions  and  views,  in  order  that,  according  to  the  letter  of  con- 
vocation, the  affair  might  be  the  more  profitably  and  the  more 
speedily  understood  and  brought  to  an  end. ' ' 

When  the  reading  of  the  Proposition  was  finished  the  Electors 
and  Princes  rose  to  their  feet,  and  after  some  deliberation  first 
made  reply,  and  then  thanked  the  Emperor  for  his  presence  at 
the  Diet.  They  were  then  commanded  to  send  their  secretaries 
to  the  Rathaus  at  three  o'clock  P.  M.,  to  obtain  each  a  copy  of  the 
Imperial  Proposition.  The  Emperor  now  rose  up  and  was  con- 
ducted to  the  palace  by  the  Princes.    It  was  one  o'clock  P.  M. 

The  following  account  of  the  opening  of  the  Diet  is  given  by 
Kress  and  Volkamer,  the  Niirnberg  commissioners,  who  were 
present:  "Since  our  last  letter  (June  19th)  nothing  further 
has  been  done,  for  on  Sunday  the  Emperor  went  to  the  Cathedral 
to  the  Sacrament,  and  yesterday,  Monday,  the  Mass  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  simg  at  the  Cathedral  in  the  presence  of  all  the  Estates. 
Especially  were  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  Margrave  George,  also 
Hessen  and  Liineburg  present,  and  they  attended  the  Emperor 
in  all  the  ceremonies.  During  the  service  the  Apostolic  Nuncio, 
in  behalf  of  the  Pope,  from  a  lofty  platform  erected  before  the 
High  Altar,  delivered  to  the  Emperor  and  to  the  Imperial  Estates 
a  Latin  oration  more  than  an  hour  long,  and  admonished  them 
most  earnestly  to  resist  the  Turk,  and  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism 
of  the  faith,  and  to  settle  other  matters  in  the  Empire. 

"Then  the  Emperor,  the  King,  and  all  the  Electors,  Princes 
and  Estates  adjourned  to  the  Eatliaus,  where  Duke  Frederick, 
in  behalf  of  the  Emperor,  made  a  short  address,  and  opened  the 
Diet,  and  read  the  Programme  according  to  which  the  Emperor 
would  conduct  the  affairs  of  the  Diet.  Thereupon  the  Electors 
and  Princes,  through  jMargrave  Joachim,  delivered  in  reply  an 
address  expressive  of  loyalty  and  obedience.  It  was  decided  to 
give  a  copy  of  the  Emperor's  Programme  to  the  Electors,  Princes 
and  Estates,  that  they  might  consider  it,  and  afterwards  come  to- 
gether and  consult.  After  this  the  Emperor  and  all  the  Estates, 
at  one  o  'clock — so  long  had  the  session  lasted — left  the  house. ' '  * 

*  C.  E.  II.,  121-2.     For  fuller  and  more  minute  accounts  of  the  opening 


78  THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    AUGSBURC4    CONFESSION. 

3.  Agreement  to  Present  a  Confession  in  Common. 
The  Appeal  sent  from  Speyer  has  brought  an  answer.  An 
Imperial  Diet  takes  the  place  of  a  national  council.  The  Pro- 
testant Princes  are  now  ordered  to  present,  in  writing,  their 
views  about  the  religious  conditions  in  Germany.  The  hour  for 
which  they  had  long  prayed  and  pleaded  has  come.  But  only  in 
part  are  the  Protestants  prepared  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  that 
hour.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  has  his  Articles  of  Faith,  and  his 
Articles  on  the  Abuses  which  had  been  corrected,  written  both 
in  Latin  and  in  German.  Other  Protestant  Princes  had  come  to 
Augsburg  with  Bedenken.  Concert  of  action  had  not  been  con- 
summated, though  the  subject  had  elicited  attention  and  had 
incited  to  some  action.  Already,  in  Melanchthon 's  letter  of  May 
22d,  to  Luther,  an  intimation  is  given  that  the  Landgrave  of 
Hesse  might  subscribe  the  Saxon  Articles,  but  the  fact  that  the 
Landgrave  showed  strong  sympathy  with  the  Zwinglians  and  the 
Strassburgers  placed  difficulties  in  the  way  of  united  action.* 
Even  the  Elector  of  Saxony  treated  the  first  suggestion  of  united 
action  with  rebuke,  thinking  that  it  might  be  of  the  devil.f  But 
the  matter  is  pressed  by  the  Niirnberg  commissioners,  and  finds 
ready  response  from  the  chancellor  of  Margrave  George,  who 
thought  that  it  would  be  well  for  those  who  are  at  one  in  the 
articles  of  faith  to  present  a  common  statement  in  the  name  of 
all  the  Princes  and  cities,  and  to  follow  the  Margrave  and  the 
Elector.    So  far  had  the  suggestion  proceeded  by  June  8th. J 

of  the  Diet,  see  Schirrmacher,  Brief e  und  Aden,  73-5;  Coelestin,  Historia, 
I.,  103  et  seqq.;  Chytraeus,  Historia,  p.  52.  For  the  Imperial  Program  in 
German,  see  Schirrmacher,  pp.  79-81;  J.  J.  Miiller,  Historie,  pp.  564:  et  seqq.; 
Forstemann,  Urlcundenhuch,  I.,  306  et  seqq.  For  the  same  in  Latin,  called 
Propositio,  see  Coelestin,  Historia,  I.,  120-1;  Chytraeus,  Historia,  pp.  53-60. 

*  For  political,  as  well  as  for  theological,  reasons  the  Lutherans  as- 
sembled at  Augsburg  were  intensely  hostile  to  the  views  of  the  Zwinglians. 
Agricola  preached  again  and  again  at  Augsburg  against  the  Zwinglian  view 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  called  the  Zwinglians  Geschriftstiirmer.  Michael 
Keller  defended  the  Zwinglian  view.  The  people  of  Augsburg  strongly 
favored  the  Zwinglian  preachers,  and  felt  indignation  against  their  assail- 
ants. Philip  of  Hesse,  up  to  June  12th,  had  not  attended  the  Lutheran 
preaching.  See  Jonas,  Briefwechsel  (Kawerau),  I.,  151-2;  also,  Politische 
Correspondens  der  Stadt  Strasslurg  im  Zeitalter  der  Beformation,  446  et 
seqq.  Melanchthon  and  Brentz  labored  to  turn  the  Landgrave  from  his 
Zwinglian  sympathies.  See  the  correspondence,  C.  E.  II.,  92-103.  They 
even  invoked  the  aid  of  Luther.  See  Knaake's  Luther's  Antheil;  Kostlin, 
Martin  Luther,  II.,  216,  654;  Schirrmacher,  Brief e  und  Acten,  p.  489. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Eck's  404  Articles  had  quickened  the  zeal  of 
the  Lutherans  against  the  Zwinglians.  Nor  had  Melanchthon  recovered  from 
the  opposition  which  he  had  conceived  against  the  alliance  with  the  cities 
of  Southern  Germany,  which  was  to  have  been  consummated  at  Eotach  (see 
p.    18). 

tC.  E.  IL,  53. 

I  C.  E.  IL,  88. 


THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  79 

Melanchtlion  has  also  caught  the  spirit  of  this  movement,  and  for 
certain  words,  which  have  exclusive  reference  to  the  Elector, 
he  has  substituted  common  words  which  refer  to  all  the  Estates, 
and  has  expressed  the  thought  that  the  "Preface  and  the  Con- 
clusion may  be  set  forth,  not  alone  in  the  name  of  the  Elector, 
but,  in  common,  in  the  name  of"  all  the  united  Lutheran  Princes 
and  Estates."  Yet  nothing  had  been  said  to  the  Margrave, 
nor  to  the  Niirnberg  commissioners.  But  the  latter  are  persistent 
and  write  to  their  Senate :  ' '  We  think  it  would  be  well  to  speak 
with  Margrave  George,  and  then,  in  his  name  and  in  yours,  to 
make  a  suggestion  to  the  Elector.  We  offer  this  for  your  further 
consideration,  and  await  your  decision,  especially  as  to  whether 
we  shall  present  a  Preface  and  a  Conclusion  according  to  your 
conception,  or  shall  request  a  Confession  in  common  words,  in  the 
name  of  all  the  Princes  and  Estates,  and  shall  send  the  same  to 
you  for  further  revision. ' '  * 

We  are  now  brought  to  Wednesday,  June  15th,  the  day  on 
which  the  Emperor  entered  Augsburg,  with  the  proposition  of 
concerted  action,  practically  confined  to  the  Margrave  and  to  the 
Niirnbergers.  At  least,  we  do  not  hear  that  the  proposition  is 
seriously  entertained  by  the  other  Protestant  Princes  and 
Estates.! 

The  next  five  days  were  occupied  with  matters  that  seemed  to 
divert  attention  from  the  Confession.  At  least,  we  do  not  hear 
it  mentioned  in  the  circles  of  the  Princes  and  Estates.  But  now 
that  the  Emperor's  Programme  has  demanded  that  they  present 
their  view^s  on  the  subject  of  religion  in  writing,  it  is  easy  to 
see  that  the  importance  of  united  action  and  of  a  common  con- 
fession of  their  faith  would  not  long  remain  absent  from  their 
thoughts.  What  seems  so  proper  and  natural  to  us,  at  so  great 
a  distance,  seemed  just  as  proper  and  natural  to  them  in  the 
thick  of  the  danger.  For  already,  on  the  evening  of  the  20th, 
"Duke  John  the  Elector  assembled  his  allies  in  religion  at  his 
lodgings,  and  exhorted  them  in  an  earnest  and  solemn  address, 
faithfully  and  fearlessly  to  stand  by  and  to  defend  the  cause  of 
God  and  the  pure  religion,  and  not  to  allow  themselves,  by  any 
threats  or  intimidations  to  be  led  to  deny  the  same,  since  all 
machinations  against  God  will  be  impotent,  and  the  good  cause 
will  at  length  undoubtedly  triumph."  i    This  he  did  in  view  of 

*  C.  E.  II.,  105. 

t  See  letter  of  Niirnberg  Commissioners,  C.  E.  II.,  112. 

t  Coelestin,  Eistoria,  I.,  121-2. 


80  THE    DELIVERY   OF   THE    AUGSBURG   CONFESSION. 

the  fact  that  the  Emperor  had  ordered  both  him  and  his  co-re- 
ligionists to  present  themselves  at  the  RatJiaus,  on  Wednesday, 
22d.*  But  more  important  still  were  the  transactions  of  the 
next  day. 

Coelestin  has  given  the  following  account:  "On  the  twenty- 
first  day  of  the  same  month,  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  having  sent 
all  his  counsellors  and  attendants  from  his  presence,  alone  in 
secret,  read  the  Psalter,  and  most  fervently  prayed  God  for  the 
glory  of  his  name  and  for  the  salvation  of  many  souls,  to  assist, 
to  promote,  to  advance,  and  to  defend  the  cause  of  true  religion. 

"He  also  wrote  down  his  good  pious  reflections.  These  were 
given  by  John  Dolsch,  the  Electoral  Counsellor,  to  Melanchthon, 
who  read  them  with  admiration  and  retained  them.  The  Elec- 
tor 's  autograph  was  subsequently  exliibited  by  Dolsch  at  Leipzig 
to  many  learned  and  honorable  men,  who  read  it. 

"The  same  day,  about  8  o'clock  A.  M.,  he  carefully,  alone, 
examined  and  pondered  the  Proposition  which  at  the  opening  of 
the  Diet  had  been  read  by  order  of  the  Emperor  to  all  the  Orders 
and  Estates  of  the  Empire.  A  little  later,  when  about  to  take 
refreshments,  he  called  his  son,  John  Frederick,  Philip  Melanch- 
thon and  Dr.  Pontanus,  and  conferred  with  them  very  confi- 
dentially about  religion,  and  made  known  his  plans,  distinctly 
affirming  that  he  would  neither  confer  nor  act  in  political  mat- 
ters, except  the  cause  of  religion  be  first  taken  up  for  decision 
and  determination,  and  yet  he  would  make  no  pronunciamento 
without  the  advice  of  his  allies  in  religion.  Therefore,  at  2 
o'clock  P.  M.,  he  summons  to  his  quarters  the  Estates  kindred  in 
religion.  When  all  these  had  assembled  at  the  appointed  time, 
Duke  John,  the  Elector,  ordered  Dr.  Pontanus  to  read  the  Propo- 
sition to  all  the  Evangelical  Orders  present,  with  a  loud  and  dis- 
tinct utterance,  so  that  each  one  could  hear,  understand  and 
ponder  it,  and  could  declare  openly  and  make  known  his  opinion 
concerning  it.  When  the  Proposition  had  been  read,  the  Evan- 
gelical Estates  say  that  they  are  diligently  considering  the  whole 
subject,  and  that  they  wish  to  meet  the  Prince  the  next  day  and 
to  counsel  with  him."  f 

We  have  another  account  of  this  meeting  of  the  Evangelical 
Princes  and  Estates.  On  the  afternoon  of  that  same  day,  June 
21st,  the  Niirnberg  commissioners  wrote  a  letter  to  their  Senate, 
finishing  it  at  five  o'clock.     Referring,  doubtless,  to  the  matter 

*  J.  J.  Miiller,  Historie,  p.  56. 

t  Coelestin,  Historia,  p.  122 ;  Miiller,  Historie,  p.  568. 


THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSIOX.  81 

of  a  common  confession,  they  say:  "Since  our  last  letter  (June 
19th)  nothing  further  has  been  done."  Then  they  add  a  "Post- 
script," written  the  same  evening,  and  say:  "After  we  had 
finished  this  letter,  I,  Kress,  was  summoned  to  the  Elector's 
quarters.  His  Electoral  Grace,  Margrave  George,  and  the  coun- 
sellors of  Hesse  and  Liineburg  were  there.  They  declare  simply 
that,  inasmuch  as  the  Elector  has  already  had  a  confession  of 
faith  composed,  a  copy  of  which  you  have  received,  they  have 
presented  themselves  before  the  Elector  and  Margrave  George 
for  the  purpose  of  joining  the  Elector.  They  are  holding  a  ses- 
sion over  those  articles  for  the  purpose  of  further  revising,  com- 
posing and  finishing  them.  It  is  the  desire  of  the  Princes  that 
3^our  Excellencies  should  immediately  send  your  preachers,  or 
whom  you  will,  but  especially  Osiander,  and  would  instruct  them 
to  help  us  to  consider  and  to  deliberate  over  these  articles  and 
whatever  else  is  needed  in  the  transaction. ' '  * 

This  ' '  Postscript ' '  supplements  and  confirms  the  account  given 
by  Coelestin,  since  both  accounts  recite  the  transactions  of  the 
same  persons,  viz.,  the  Elector  and  other  Evangelical  Princes,  on 
the  same  afternoon,  viz.,  that  of  Tuesday,  June  21st,  and  at  the 
same  place,  viz.,  at  the  lodgings  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  Kress, 
the  Niirnberg  connnissioner,  was  present  at  this  meeting  and  re- 
ports the  consummation  of  the  Niirnberg-Margrave  plan  for  a 
common  confession  and  for  united  action.  On  this  Tuesday  after- 
noon the  Saxon  Confession  begins  its  larger  mission.  It  now  be- 
comes the  bond  of  union  for  the  Evangelical  ' '  party, ' '  and  then 
the  fundamental  confession  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church. 
To  serve  this  larger  purpose,  it  had  to  be  revised,  adapted  and 
brought  to  a  close.  Hence  it  is  not  until  Tuesday  afternoon  that 
we  have  what  may  be  called  the  relatively  finished  Augsburg 
Confession,  though  Melanchthon,  so  the  historians  are  careful 
to  inform  us,  continued  to  make  changes  in  it  up  to  the  last 
hour  before  its  delivery  to  the  Emperor.  Certainly,  this  day 
witnessed  a  glorious  consummation.  It  deserves  to  be  celebrated 
as  one  of  the  memorable  days  in  the  history  of  Lutheranism ;  for, 
had  the  Evangelical  Princes  gone  before  the  Diet,  each  with  his 
own  confession,  the  result  would  have  been  inextricable  confu- 
sion. Each  would  have  defended  "his  own,  and  doubtless  would 
have  done  so  at  the  expense  of  his  co-religionists.  But  a  com- 
mon danger,  and  the  consciousness  of  being  at  one  in  faith,  and 
the  common  obligation  to  obey  the  imperial  requisition,  brought 
*C.  E.  II.,  p.  124. 


82  THE    DELIVP:RY    of    the    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

them  to  see  the  wisdom  and  the  desirability  of  having  and  of 
presenting  one  and  the  same  confession.  The  Niirnberg  Senate 
and  their  commissioners  at  Augsbnrg,  and  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Margrave  deserve  high  praise  for  the  wisdom,  the  statesmanship, 
and  the  perseverance  shown  by  them  in  regard  to  this  the  most 
important  proposition  that  had  yet  come  before  the  Protestant 
Estates.  Union  at  this  time  meant  strength  and  the  ability  to 
withstand  opposition.  Isolation  would  have  stood  as  a  synonym 
for  weakness,  and  would  have  invited  defeat.  IMagnanimons  was 
the  Elector  in  having  invited  the  other  Estates  to  unite  with  him 
in  a  common  response  to  the  imperial  proposition,  and  equally 
magnanimous  were  they  in  accepting  his  confession  as  theirs. 

4.     The  Confession  is  Finished  and  Signed. 

Coelestin,  after  reciting  what  was  done  by  the  Elector  and 
Princes,  June  21st,  continues  right  on  as  follows :  "When,  there- 
fore, on  the  following  day  the  Protestants  came  together,  it  was 
unanimously  agreed,  after  deliberation,  that  no  action  should  be 
taken  touching  political  matters  until  religion  and  the  Christian 
faith  had  been  treated  and  decided  upon,  and  that  they  would 
not  assent  to  the  demands  of  the  Emperor  to  continue  aid  against 
the  Turks  until  they  had  treated  of,  and  reached  a  decision  in 
regard  to  the  articles  of  faith  and  the  peace  of  the  Christian 
Church."  Coelestin  then  recites  the  Response  made  by  the 
Princes  to  the  Imperial  Proposition,  in  which  Response  the 
declaration  is  made  that  attention  must  first  be  given  in  the 
Diet  to  the  affairs  of  religion,  and  tells  us  that  when  the  Em- 
peror had  been  informed  of  the  action  of  the  Princes,  he  com- 
manded that  they  should  present  to  him,  in  writing,  sealed,  the 
confession  and  summary  of  their  faith  and  a  statement  of  the 
methods  by  which  the  abuses  in  the  Church  might  be  corrected 
and  removed.  Prom  other  sources  of  information  we  know  that 
this  presentation  was  ordered  to  be  made  on  the  following  Fri- 
day.* Hence  the  action  of  the  Evangelicals  on  the  next  day  as 
reported  by  Coelestin : 

' '  On  the  Vigil  of  John  the  Baptist,  Thursday,  June  23d,  at  the 
request  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the  Articles  of  the  Confession 
were  read  in  a  large  assembla'ge  of  the  Evangelical  Orders,  with 
the  purpose  and  intention  especially,  that  if  anj^one  thought  that 
anything  in  them  ought  to  be  changed,  he  might  speak  freely  and 
candidly  and  might  so  declare.  When  the  reading  was  ended, 
*  J.  J.  Mliller,  Histovie,  p.   571. 


THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    COXFESSIOX.  83 

and  they  (the  Articles  of  the  Confession)  were  approved  by 
all,  it  was  decided  to  ask  the  Emperor  the  next  day,  that  with 
his  consent,  they  might  be  recited  in  the  hearing  of  all  the 
orders  of  the  Empire. ' '  * 

A  more  minute  account  of  this  same  transaction  is  given  by  the 
Niirnberg  commissioners,  who  were  present  at  and  took  part  in 
this  meeting  on  Thursday,  June  23d.  Early  on  Saturday,  June 
25th,  they  wrote  a  letter  to  their  Senate.  After  reciting  that  on 
Wednesday  the  Evangelical  Estates  had  decided  to  demand  that 
the  subject  of  religion  should  be  allowed  to  take  precedence  of 
everything  else,  they  report  as  follows:  "Last" Thursday  morn- 
ing we  and  the  legate  from  Reutlingen  were  summoned  into  the 
presence  of  the  Saxon,  the  Hessian,  Margrave  George,  and  Liine- 
burg.  There,  in  the  presence  of  their  Princely  Graces,  coun- 
sellors and  theologians — there  were  twelve  theologians,  besides 
other  scholars  and  doctors — the  afore-mentioned  Confession  of 
Faith  was  read,  examined  and  considered,  so  that  it  could  be 
read  yesterday  afternoon  to  the  Emperor  in  the  presence  of  the 
Estates  of  the  Empire.  Then,  because  the  copying  and  the  com- 
position of  the  Preface  and  of  the  Conclusion  consumed  consider- 
able time,  the  Elector  and  Princes,  through  their  counsellors, 
besought  the  Emperor  for  an  extension  of  time.  But  this  was 
denied  them,  and  yesterday,  at  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon, 
the  Emperor  and  all  the  Estates  came  to  the  House,"  t  that  is, 
to  the  Bathaus,  as  w^e  know  from  other  accounts  that  this  second 
session  of  the  Diet  was  held  at  that  place. 

5.     The  Confession  is  Bead  and  Delivered. 

The  Diet  assembled  at  the  Bathaus  about  three  o'clock  P.  M. 
on  Friday.  In  a  long  oration,  delivered  in  Latin,  Cardinal 
Campeggius,  pontifical  legate  a  latere,  exhorted  the  Princes  to 
join  the  Emperor  in  exterminating  heresy  and  in  reconciling  the 
minds  of  men,  and  in  removing  the  dissensions,  so  that  all  might 
together  carry  on  war  successfully  against  the  Turk  and  all  in- 
fidels. This  was  followed  by  orations  from  the  commissioners  of 
Lower  Austria,  who  had  been  sent  to  the  Diet  to  implore  aid 
against  the  Turk,  who  was  spreading  desolation  in  that  part  of 
the  Empire. 

The  hearing  of  those  speeches  and  the  delivery  of  suitable 

*Coelestiii,   Eistoria,  I.,   123&;    J.   J.   Miiller,  Historie,   p.   569;    Bruck, 
Geschichte,  pp.  49,  50. 
t  C.  R.  II.,  127. 


84  THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

responses  occupied  a  very  large  part  of  the  session.  But  Avhen 
y  all  this  was  over,  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the  Margrave  of  Bran- 
denburg, the  Dukes  of  Liineburg,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  and 
the  Prince  of  Anhalt  rose  up  together,  and  standing  near  the 
imperial  throne,  addressed  the  Emperor  through  Dr.  Gregory 
Briick,  the  Chancellor  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony :  They  say  that 
they  knew  and  daily  have  observed  that  many  things  pertaining 
to  the  articles  of  their  faith,  and  to  the  ceremonies  that  are  prac- 
ticed in  their  churches  have  been  misrepresented  to  his  Imperial 
Majesty,  as  that  they  have  introduced  new  and  unscriptural  doc- 
trines, heresies,  schisms  and  other  monstrous  and  absurd  opinions, 
and  scatter  and  disseminate  the  same  among  the  peo{.le.  They 
most  humbly  entreat  the  Imperial  Majesty,  the  Electors  and 
Princes  patiently  to  hear  and  to  understand  the  sum  of  the  doc- 
trine which  is  preached  in  their  several  dominions,  since  the 
matter  pertains  not  only  to  their  reputation,  fortunes,  blood  and 
life,  but  to  the  welfare  and  eternal  salvation  of  their  souls. 

Then,  after  some  consultation  with  King  Ferdinand  and  the 
Catholic  Princes,  the  Emperor  signified  through  the  Elector 
Frederick  that,  as  evening  was  now  at  hand,  and  as  the  Confes- 
sion of  the  Protestants  was  in  writing,  it  was  his  gracious  pleasure 
that  it  be  delivered  to  him.  He,  with  his  counsellors,  would  take 
it  into  consideration  and  return  an  answer.  But  this  did  not 
suit  the  Protestants.  They  insisted,  through  Chancellor  Briick, 
that  the  Emperor  should  hear  their  Confession  read.  The  Em- 
peror consulted  with  his  advisers  and  again  refused  the  request 
of  the  Protestants.  The  Protestants  now  ''vehemently  insist, 
and  most  humbly  and  for  God's  sake  beg  that  their  Confession 
should  be  read  before  all,  as  the  exigency  was  very  great,  and  no 
one  was  wantonly  attacked  in  it.  Whereupon  the  Emperor  a 
third  time  had  it  announced  that  he  was  not  inclined  to  grant 
their  request.  But  as  it  was  now  late,  it  was  his  Majesty's  desire 
that  the  Elector  and  Princes  should  present  their  Confession, 
and  that  to-day,  at  two  o'clock  P.  M.,  he  would  consider  it  at 
the  palace  in  the  presence  of  the  Electors,  the  Princes  and 
Estates. 

"But  the  Elector  and  Princes  again  declare  that  they  desire 
nothing  so  much  as  that  the  Confession  be  read  before  his 
Majesty  and  the  Estates,  and  most  earnestly  pray  this.  But  if 
it  could  not  at  this  time  be  read  to  his  INIajesty,  then  it  is  their 
desire  that  his  Majesty,  instead  of  hearing  it  at  the  palace,  as  he 
had  offered,  should  aliout  that  time  appear  again  at  the  Bafhaus 


THE    DELIVERY    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    COXFKSSIGX.  85 

and  allow  the  Confession  to  be  read,  and  should  leave  it  in  their 
hands,  that  they  might  revise  and  correct  it,  inasmuch  as  they 
had  been  hastened.  The  Emperor  persisted  that  the  hearing 
should  take  place  at  the  palace,  and  consented  that  the  Confes- 
sion should  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  Elector  and  the  Princes 
until  that  hour.  This  the  Princes  had  to  accept.  Consequently 
the  Confession  is  to  be  read  to-day." 

Such  is  the  account  given  by  the  Niirnberg  commissioners,  eye- 
witnesses, of  the  efforts  made  by  the  Protestant  Princes,  on  the 
afternoon  of  June  24th,  to  have  their  Confession  read,  and  of 
the  Emperor's  persistent  refusal  to  hear  it,  at  least  in  the  large 
assembly.  The  Protestants  were  impelled  by  the  exigency  that 
forced  them  to  introduce  articles  of  faith  into  their  Apology. 
They  meant  to  counteract  the  effect  of  Eck's  slanders  on  the 
mind  of  the  Emperor  and  of  the  Catholic  Princes.  This  is 
clearly  stated  in  Briick's  address  to  the  throne.  They  wanted 
the  Emperor  and  the  Catholic  Estates  to  hear  their  defense  read 
in  the  most  public  place  and  before  the  largest  audience.  As 
Eck's  articles  had  been  delivered  to  the  Emperor  and  to  the 
public  in  print,  it  was  but  just  that  the  refutation  should  be 
delivered  in  the  most  public  and  formal  manner.  That  the 
Emperor,  under  advice  of  his  counsellors,  refused  to  hear  the 
Confession  read,  is  doubtless  due  to  an  apprehension  that  the 
public  reading  of  the  Confession  would  create  sympathy  for  the 
Protestant  cause,  and  would  give  a  wider  circulation  to  the 
Protestant  doctrines. 

The  result  of  the  persistence  on  both  sides  was  a  compromise. 
The  Emperor  agreed  to  hear  the  Confession  read.  The  Protest- 
ants agreed  to  read  it  in  the  palace,  but  meanwhile  they  keep  it 
in  their  hands  for  revision  and  correction. 

It  was  in  this  interval  that  the  Confession  was  brought  to  its 
final  form.  For  some  days  the  Protestant  theologians,  and  espe- 
cially Llelanchthon,  had  been  working  day  and  night  on  it  in 
order  to  give  it  the  best  possible  shaping  for  its  high  destination.* 
To  what  extent  it  is  changed  in  these  later  days  of  its  composi- 
tion we  do  not  know.  But  the  Niirnberg  legates  say:  "The 
Confession,  in  so  far  as  the  articles  of  faith  are  concerned,  is 
in  substance  almost  in  accord  with  that  which  we  have  already 
sent  you ;  but  in  some  parts  it  is  improved,  and  everj-^vhere  it  is 
made  as  mild  as  possible,  though,  in  our  judgment,  nothing  neces- 

*  Salig,  Historie,  I.,  195 ;   J.  J.  Mliller,  Historie,  p.  571. 


86  THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

sary  has  been  omitted.    Hence  we  have  agreed  to  all  this,  and  in 
your  name  have  joined  the  Princes  and  Reutlingen."  * 

June  25th  comes  apace.  The  Protestant  Confession  has  re- 
ceived the  last  refining  touch  from  the  hand  of  its  author.  It  is 
now  ready  to  be  read  and  to  be  delivered  to  the  most  invincible 
Emperor  Charles  V.,  Caesar  Augustus,  at  a  Diet  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  of  the  German  Nation.  At  three  o'clock  P.  M. 
King  Ferdinand  and  the  Elector  and  Princes,  together  with  the 
legates  who  had  signed  the  Protestant  Confession,  repaired  to  the 
Episcopal  Palace  and  were  shown  into  the  chapel,  where  the 
Emperor  was  accustomed  to  hold  his  devotions.  The  room  could 
hold  comfortably  about  two  hundred  persons.  The  multitude 
of  those  who  stood  without  was  very  great.  But  the  Emperor 
forbade  admission  to  all  except  the  Princes  and  their  counsellors 
and  the  commissioners  of  the  imperial  cities.  The  others,  to 
whom  admission  was  refused,  remained  in  the  court  below  and 
heard  as  best  they  could.  At  one  end  of  the  little  room,  on  a 
raised  platform,  sat  Charles  V.,  richly  clad,  under  a  splendid 
canopy.  On  the  right  he  was  flanked  by  the  Elector  of  Saxony, 
followed  by  a  long  line  of  Princes.  On  the  left  sat  King  Ferdi- 
nand under  a  small  canopy,  flanked  by  the  Electors  of  Mayence 
and  Cologne,  the  empty  chair  of  Treves,  by  Archbishops  and 
Bishops.  In  the  midst  of  these  sat  Dr.  Jolm  Eck.  Towards  the 
rear  sat  the  commissioners  of  the  cities  and  the  civil  counsellors. 
In  the  middle  of  the  room  sat  the  two  imperial  secretaries.  The 
supreme  moment  came  at  four  o'clock,  when  the  Protestant 
Princes  made  as  though  they  would  rise  and  stand  during  the 
reading  of  their  Confession.  But  the  Emperor  bade  them  sit 
down.  Then  Drs.  Briick  and  Beyer  came  forward  in  front  of 
the  Emperor,  the  former  holding  in  his  hand  the  Latin  copy  of 
the  Confession,  and  the  latter  the  German  copy.  The  Emperor 
asked  that  the  Latin  copy  be  read,  but  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
interposed,  and  said:  "We  are  on  German  soil.  Therefore  I 
hope  his  Majesty  will  also  permit  the  German  language."  After 
a  short  address  by  Dr.  Briick  in  the  name  of  the  Protestant 
Princes  and  Estates,  the  Confession  was  read  by  Dr.  Beyer  in 
the  German  language.  The  reading  lasted  two  hours.  The  Em- 
peror, the  King,  Princes  and  Bishops,  and  others,  listen  with 

*  The  letter  of  the  Niiruberg  commissioners,  from  which  we  have  copiously 
quoted  in  this  section,  was  written  very  early  in  the  morning  of  June  25th. 
C.  R.  II.,  127-130.  See  Coelestin,  Historia,  I.,  133-4;  J.  J.  Miiller,  Historie, 
pp.  580  et  seqq.;  Chytraeus,  Historia,  p.  69;  Fikenscher,  Gescliiclite  des 
Heichstags  zu  Augsburg,  pp.  81  et  seqq. 


THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION,  87 

the  closest  attention,  though  the  Emperor  is  said  to  have  slept 
for  awhile.*  When  Dr.  Beyer  read  from  the  Confession  (Art. 
XXIII.)  that  four  hundred  years  before  that  time  the  Pope  pro- 
hibited marriage  to  the  German  priests,  and  that  the  Archbishop 
of  ]\Iayence  had  encountered  much  opposition  in  enforcing  the 
edict,  the  King  asked  the  Archbishop  of  IMayence  if  that  was 
true.f  After  the  reading  Dr.  Briick  took  both  copies  and  was 
about  to  deliver  them  to  Alexander  Schweiss,  one  of  the  imperial 
secretaries,  to  be  passed  by  him  to  the  Elector  of  IMayence.  But 
the  Emperor  reached  out  his  hands  and  took  both  copies.|  The 
German  copy  he  gave  to  .the  Elector  of  ]\Iayence,  to  be  deposited 
in  the  imperial  archives.  The  Latin  copy  he  retained  by  him 
and  subsequently  had  it  placed  in  the  imperial  archives  at 
Brussels.  Both  copies  were  originals,  and  both  are  supposed 
to  have  perished,  at  least  it  is  not  known  that  either  is  in  exist- 
ence anywhere  in  the  world.  Neither  did  the  Protestants  keep  a 
certified  or  official  copy  of  their  Confession. 

The  Emperor  commanded  his  secretary,  Alexander  Schweiss, 
to  translate  the  Confession  into  French  and  Italian,  and  to  see 
that  not  one  word  Avas  omitted  in  the  translations,  but  that  the 
whole  matter  be  correctly  expressed.  Cardinal  Campeggius  sent 
a  copy  of  the  Italian  version  to  the  Pope,  Clement  VII.  The  am- 
bassadors of  the  Kings  of  England,  France  and  Portugal,  and 
the  representatives  of  other  foreign  potentates,  had  the  Con- 
fession translated  into  their  respective  languages,  and  sent  to 
their  Principals.  § 

"Thus  it  happened,"  says  J.  J.  Miiller,  "that  this  Confession 
of  Faith,  almost  like  lightning,  spread  in  a  moment  from  the 
East  to  the  "West,  and  was  espoused  not  only  by  individuals,  but 
by  entire  nations — yea,  it  shall  stand  not  only  before  the  Pope, 
but  before  the  Devil,  and  before  the  gates  of  hell  to  the  last 
day." 

But  this  account  of  the  reading  and  delivery  of  the  Confession, 
drawn  from  the  most  authentic  sources,  may  with  profit  to  the 
reader  be  supplemented  by  reports  from  those  who  were  eye- 
Avitnesses  of  the  transactions  of  that  day.  which  dates  the  birth 
of  a  great  Evangelical  Church. 

*  C.  R.  II.,  p.  145  and  p.  245. 

t  Coelestin,  I.,  p.  189;   Spalatin,  Annales,  p.  139. 

t  Spalatin,  p.  139;  Briick,  Geschichte,  p.  55.  Neue  Kirchliche  Zeitsclirift 
(1906),  p.   738. 

§  J.  J.  Miiller,  pp.  585  et  seqq.;  Coelestin,  I.,  141;  Salig,  I.,  210  et  seqq.; 
Schirrmacher,   p.   93. 


bo  THE    DELIVERY    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

The  Elector  of  Saxony,  writing  to  Luther,  June  25th,  evi- 
dently before  three  o'clock  P.  M.,  says:  "On  the  day  of  John 
the  Baptist  (June  24th)  we,  with  our  allies,  presented  ourselves 
before  the  Emperor,  the  King  of  Bohemia,  the  Electors  and 
Estates,  at  a  public  meeting,  and  offered,  in  accordance  with  the 
imperial  command,  to  present  our  Articles  in  Latin  and  German, 
to  read  publicly  and  deliver  the  German.  Though  we  several 
times  humbly  begged  to  read  them  publicly,  yet  we  did  not 
succeed,  for  the  King  and  the  opposing  party  resolutely  resisted 
it.  But  we  have  the  assurance  that  the  Emperor  will  hear  the 
Articles  to-day  in  the  palace — so  arranged  that  not  many  per- 
sons can  be  present. ' '  * 

On  June  26th  the  Niirnberg  commissioners  write  to  their  Sen- 
ate as  follows:  "Yesterday,  Saturday,  at  3  o'clock  P.  M.,  the 
Confession  of  Faith,  as  it  was  when  last  we  wrote  you,  sub- 
scribed by  the  Elector,  the  other  Princes  and,  in  your  name  and 
in  that  of  Reutlingen,  was  delivered  in  Latin  and  German  to  the 
Emperor  in  the  presence  of  the  King,  the  Electors,  Princes  and 
Estates,  assembled  in  the  palace.  It  was  first  read  in  German 
before  their  Majesties,  the  Electors,  Princes  and  Estates  by  the 
Saxon  Chancellor,  Dr.  Christian  (Beyer),  publicly  and  distinctly, 
so  that  all  present  could  easily  hear  it.  Then  the  Emperor,  after 
conferring  with  the  other  Electors  and  Princes,  announced 
through  Duke  Frederick  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  his  allies, 
that  his  Majesty  had  heard  the  Confession.  But  inasmuch  as 
the  matter  was  somewhat  lengthy,  and  also  highly  important, 
necessity  was  laid  on  his  IMajesty  to  consider  and  to  counsel  well 
over  the  whole  matter — that  he  would  do  this  and  would  demean 
himself  in  the  matter  as  becomes  a  gracious  Christian  Emperor, 
and  when  he  shall  have  made  up  his  mind  on  the  subject,  he 
will  again  summon  the  Elector  and  the  Princes.  For  this  answer 
and  for  the  gracious  hearing  the  Elector,  Princes  and  allies  re- 
turned hearty  thanks  to  the  Emperor,  the  King,  the  Electors, 
Princes  and  Estates,  with  the  assurance  that  they  had  acted  with 
all  loyalty  and  friendliness ;  also  that  if  his  IMajesty  should  sum- 
mon them  again,  they  would  willingly  appear,  and  not  only  in 
regard  to  this  matter,  but  in  regard  to  all  the  matters  for  which 

*  German  in  Scliirrmacber,  pp.  88-9,  and  in  Chytraeus,  p.  45& ;  Latin  in 
Coelestin,  I.,  p.  140.  Valdesivis,  in  his  History  of  the  Diet  of  Augsburg, 
given  by  Cyprian,  Beylage  VII.,  says  that  the  Lutheran  Princes  wanted 
their  Confession  read  publicly  for  the  purpose  of  catching  the  popular  ear. 
No  doubt  each  party  correctlj'  interpreted  the  motive  of  the  other.  The 
Protestants  were  successful  in  their  principal  contention,  viz.,  that  the  Con- 
fession should  be  read. 


THE    DELIVERY    OF   THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  89 

the  Diet  had  been  summoned  by  his  Majesty,  they  would  per- 
form their  duty. 

"Then  the  Emperor,  as  has  since  been  reported  to  us,  spoke 
with  the  Elector  and  Princes  privately,  and  requested  them  to 
retain  the  Confession  by  them,  and  not  to  allow  it  to  be  printed. 
This  they  promised  to  do.  His  Majesty  did  not  conduct  himself 
ungraciously  during  these  proceedings.  We  have  also  heard 
more  than  one  say  that  no  objection  could  be  found  with  such  a 
Confession,  and  some  of  the  Electors  and  Princes  regard  it  as 
moderate. ' '  * 

In  Schirrmacher's  Briefe  nnd  Aden,  pp.  89,  90,  we  have  the 
following  account :  "On  Saturday  after  John  the  Baptist 's  day, 
the  Elector  of  Saxony,  Duke  John,  the  Margrave  George  of 
Brandenburg,  Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony,  Duke  Ernest  of 
Brunswick  and  Liineburg,  Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse,  Duke 
Francis  of  Brunswick  and  Liineburg,  Prince  Wolfgang  of  Anhalt, 
and  the  two  cities,  Niirnberg  and  Reutlingen,  had  the  CONFES- 
SION of  their  faith  and  of  the  entire  Christian  doctrine  that  is 
preached  in  their  principalities,  lands  and  cities,  publicly  read 
in  German,  article  by  article,  with  joyous  courage  and  heart,  and 
that  not  only  in  the  presence  of  all  the  Electors,  Princes,  Estates, 
Bishops,  Counsellors,  that  were  present,  but  also  before  the 
Roman  Emperor  himself  and  his  brother.  King  Ferdinand. 

' '  It  was  read  by  the  Saxon  Chancellor,  Dr.  Christian,  so  loud 
and  so  distinctly  that  it  was  heard  not  only  in  the  hall,  but  also 
in  the  yard  below,  that  is,  in  the  Bishop  of  Augsburg's  court, 
where  the  Emperor's  lodgings  are. 

'  *  The  Confession  had  been  composed  in  German  and  in  Latin, 
but  on  account  of  the  shortness  of  the  time  it  was  read  only  in 
the  German.  The  Estates  also  promised  a  fuller  explanation 
in  case  anything  should  be  found  lacking  in  the  Confession,  and 
they  declare  that  they  do  not  decline  the  council  that  has  been 
so  long  promised  and  ordered."  f 

6.     The  Effect  of  the  Beading  of  the  Confession. 

The  effect  of  the  reading  of  the  Confession  before  the  Emperor 

and  Estates,  and  in  the  hearing  of  so  many  people  in  the  court 

below,  was  twofold.     In  the  first  place,   it  strengthened  and 

ratified  the  bond  of  union  which  the  Protestants  had  established 

*  C.  E.  II.,  142  et  seqq. 

t  See  an  almost  verbally  identical  account  of  the  reading  of  the  Con- 
fession in  Spalatin's  Annales,  pp.  134-5. 


90  THE    DELIVERY    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

between  themselves  when  they  subscribed  their  common  Confes- 
sion, on  June  23d.  By  compliance  with  the  terms  of  the  Im- 
perial Proposition  they  had  brought  their  cause  orderly  and 
lawfully  before  the  Diet  of  the  Empire,  and  had  obtained  the 
promise  from  His  Imperial  Majesty  that  their  cause  should  be 
carefully  and  becomingly  considered.  They  had  achieved  the 
object  of  their  presence  at  Augsburg,  not  by  violence,  not  by 
resistance  to  the  civil  power,  but  with  all  humility  and  with 
protestations  of  loyalty  and  devotion.  They  were  bold  for  the 
honor  of  God  and  in  defense  of  truth  against  calumny  and  de- 
traction. As  a  consequence,  they  were  made  strong  by  the  great 
transaction,  as  men  are  always  made  strong  when  they  perform 
a  duty  that  involves  their  reputation,  their  lives,  the  eternal 
destiny  of  their  souls. 

The  second  effect  was  that  Eck's  "most  diabolical  slanders" 
had  been  refuted.  The  Confession  read  showed  that  the  Luth- 
erans did  not  blaspheme  God,  nor  profane  the  sacraments,  nor 
disseminate  absurd  and  monstrous  opinions;  that  they  were  not 
the  allies  of  the  Anabaptists  and  of  all  the  ancient  and  modern 
heretics  whom  the  Church  had  condemned;  that  they  did  not 
abolish  the  divine  worship,  nor  rave  against  the  Church  worse 
than  the  Turks.  On  the  contrary,  the  Confession  showed  the 
Emperor  and  the  Catholic  Estates  that  the  Lutherans  stood  on 
the  Scriptures  and  on  the  ancient  foundations  of  the  Church, 
and  on  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers;  that  they  preached  the 
Gospel,  administered  the  sacraments  and  inculcated  obedience  to 
the  civil  authorities.  In  a  word,  the  Confession  set  forth  a  com- 
plete refutation  of  all  the  accusations  that  had  been  made  against 
them. 

The  effect  upon  the  Catholics  was  indeed  great.  The  Em- 
peror exclaimed:  "The  Protestants  do  not  err  in  the  articles 
of  faith. ' '  *  Bishop  von  Stadion  said :  ' '  What  has  been  read 
is  true,  the  pure  truth,  and  we  cannot  deny  it ; "  f  and  he  declared 
that  he  would  concede  both  forms,  the  eucharist  and  the  mar- 
riage of  priests,  rather  than  see  the  parties  separate  from  each 
other. J  Matthew  Lang,  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  said:  "The 
Mass  and  the  prohibition  about  eating,  and  other  human  regu- 
lations, are  not  right,  but  it  cannot  be  endured  that  a  miserable 
monk  should  do  all  the  reforming."  §  Duke  William  of  Bavaria, 
after  having  heard  the  Confession  read,  not  only  spoke  kindly 

*  Coelestin.  t  Walch,  Introductio,  p.  176. 

t  C.  R.  II.,  150.  §  J.  J.  Miiller,  p.  589. 


THE    DELIVEEY    OF   THE   AUGSBURG   CONFESSION.  91 

to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  but  assured  him  of  his  good  will,  and 
said  he  had  been  differently  informed  about  Luther's  teaching; 
and  when  Eck  told  him  that  Luther's  teaching  could  be  refuted 
from  the  Fathers,  but  not  from  the  Scriptures,  he  replied :  "As 
I  understand  the  matter,  the  Lutherans  sit  on  the  Scriptures  and 
we  alongside  of  them. ' '  * 

"Even  that  great  persecutor  of  the  truth,  Duke  Henry  of 
Brunswick,  invited  Melanchthon  to  his  table,  was  very  friendly, 
and  assured  him  that  he  could  not  deny  the  articles  in  regard  to 
both  forms,  the  marriage  of  priests  and  the  prohibition  of  meats. 
Archbishop  Hermann  of  Cologne, Palsgraf  Frederick,  Duke  Erick 
of  Brunswick-Liineburg,  Henry  Duke  of  Mecklenburg,  the  Dukes 
of  Pomerania,  Count  George  Ernest  of  Henneberg,  and  even  the 
Emperor's  confessor,  a  Spanish  barefoot  monk,  also  Paul  Kicener, 
King  Ferdinand's  physician,  were  all  convinced  of  the 
truth,  only  they  did  not  freely  confess  it.  The  Confession  made 
a  very  strong  impression  on  the  Elector  Hermann  of  Cologne, 
who  not  only  showed  the  closest  attention  during  the  reading, 
but  afterwards  often  read  it  through  and  tested  it  according  to 
God's  Word,  and  in  1536  began  a  reformation  in  his  own  arch- 
bishopric. ' '  t 

But  the  supreme  benefit  to  the  Lutherans  was  that,  as  their 
Confession  quickly  spread  over  Germany,  and,  indeed,  over  all 
Europe,  it  disabused  innumerable  minds  of  the  prejudices  that 
they  had  entertained  in  regard  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  and 
practice,  and  converted  enemies  into  friends.  The  Lutheran 
Church  had  taken  the  place  of  the  Lutheran  party,  and  now  be- 
gan to  go  forth  conquering  and  to  conquer. 

*  Eotermund,  p.   102. 

t  Eotermiiud,   Geschichte   der  Augsh.   Confession,  p.   102. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  is  a  historical  document.  It  arose 
in  an  age  of  great  events.  It  is  itself  a  great  event.  It  has  been 
in  active  operation  for  nearly  four  hundred  years.  It  has  itself 
made  history.  Kings  and  potentates  have  fought  against  it. 
Kings  and  potentates  have  fought  for  it.  It  has  been  laid  down 
as  the  foundation  of  civil  and  religious  alliances.  Treaties  be- 
tween nations  have  rested  upon  it.  It  has  determined  and  helped 
to  determine  the  religious  and  ecclesiastical  destiny  of  the  vast 
majority  of  the  Protestant  peoples  of  the  whole  world.  It  has 
shaped  more  theological  thinking  and  writing  than  all  other 
Protestant  confessions  together.  It  still  lives  and  moves  and 
acts.  Millions  of  Christians  own  and  acknowledge  it  as  the  sum- 
mary of  their  faith.  Millions  would  surrender  their  lives  rather 
than  surrender  the  truths  which  it  embodies  and  enshrines  and 
inculcates. 

A  marvelous  document,  then,  is  this  Augsburg  Confession. 
In  depth  and  compass  of  influence  it  has  no  equal  in  Protestant 
Christendom.  The  philosopher,  the  theologian,  the  historian,  has 
each  made  it  the  subject  of  his  reflections,  but  no  man  has  yet 
adequately  set  forth  the  qualities  of  its  greatness.  It  may  be 
doubted  whether  its  author  fully  understood  it,  and  whether 
the  witnesses  who  subscribed  it  fully  comprehended  its  con- 
tents and  its  signiflcance.  And  we  may  say  that  no  estimate 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  that  has  ever  been  given  has  satis- 
fied either  its  friends  or  its  foes.  It  stands  as  a  sort  of 
mystery  of  the  ages,  embodying  a  history  of  the  past  and 
enshrining  a  prophecy  of  the  future.  Each  generation  inves- 
tigates its  history  anew  and  interprets  its  prophecy  afresh. 
The  fact  that  it  has  survived  the  attacks  of  its  foes,  and  the 
defenses  of  its  friends — both  often  alike  injudicious — is  evi- 
dence that  it  is  endowed  with  preternatural  vitality.  And  yet 
the  Augsburg  Confession  is  not  perfect.  It  does  not  contain  all 
that  we  have  a  right  to  desire  in  it,  nor  is  everything  which  it 
contains  in  the  form  and  in  the  degree  which  we  have  a  right  to 
expect  that  they  should  be.    We  must  take  it  as  it  is,  noting  well 

(92) 


THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  93 

its  content  and  pointing  out  the  desiderata.  As  a  historical  docu- 
ment it  must  be  described  and  interpreted  historically.  "We  have 
no  right  to  say  dogmatically  what  the  Augsburg  Confession  ought 
to  have  been,  or  ought  not  to  have  been.  We  cannot  transport 
ourselves  back  to  the  year  1530  and  have  the  mind  in  us  that  was 
in  the  author  and  in  the  subscribers  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
They  faced  a  great  exigency  and  wrought  a  great  work.  We 
might  have  failed.  Hence,  instead  of  moralizing  or  of  philoso- 
phizing, or  of  dogmatizing,  we  content  ourselves  with  the  humbler, 
but  the  more  profitable,  service  of  describing  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  that  chiefly  in  the  words  of  those  who,  as  special 
students  of  its  history  and  as  adherents  to  its  teaching,  speak 
from  fuLness  of  knowledge  and  from  loyalty  of  appreciation. 

1.     Estimates  of  Historians. 

Leopold  von  Ranke,  after  describing  the  origin  of  the  Confes- 
sion and  Melanchthon 's  effort  to  verify  the  articles,  not  only  by 
appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  but  also  to  the  Fathers,  says:  "And  in 
my  opinion  it  can  by  no  means  be  denied  that  the  doctrine  as  it 
appears  here  is  yet  the  product  of  the  living  spirit  of  the  Latin 
Church,  which  still  existed  within  its  fold,  of  all  its  productions 
perhaps  the  most  remarkable,  intrinsically  the  most  significant. 
In  the  very  nature  of  the  case  it  bears  the  complexion  of  its 
origin,  in  that  the  fundamental  conception,  w^hich  proceeded  from 
Luther  in  the  article  of  justification,  imparted  to  it  characteristics 
of  individuality.  But  this  is  true  of  all  things  human.  The  same 
fundamental  conception  came  into  active  prominence  more  than 
once  in  the  Latin  Church.  Luther  only  laid  hold  of  it  again  with 
all  the  energy  of  religious  need,  and  in  the  conflict  with  opposing 
conceptions  and  in  presenting  it  to  the  people,  gave  it  universal 
validity.  No  man  can  say  that  as  it  appears  here  it  contains  any- 
thing that  is  sectarian.  Hence  they  (the  Lutherans)  opposed 
the  more  accidental  dogmatic  formulae  as  they  had  appeared  in 
the  later  centuries.  They  were  not  inclined  to  ascribe  normative 
and  demonstrative  authority  to  a  Church  Father,  but  they  were 
conscious  that  they  had  not  severed  themselves  essentially  from 
his  conception.  There  is  a  secret  tradition  which  does  not  ex- 
press itself  in  formula,  but  rather  in  the  original  conception  of 
the  idea,  which  is  not  determined  by  all  the  necessity  which  it 
seems  to  have,  and  yet  it  dominates  the  activity  of  the  thinking, 
creating  spirit.  They  felt  that  they  still  stood  on  the  old  founda- 
tion as  it  had  been  fortified  by  Augustine.    They  tried  to  break 


94  THE    CHARACTEEISTICS   OF   THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

down  the  particularism  by  which  the  Latin  Church  had  allowed 
itself  to  be  fettered  in  the  later  centuries,  and  to  cast  off  the 
yoke.  They  went  clear  back  to  the  Scripture  and  held  to  its  let- 
ter. But  were  not  the  Scriptures  for  a  long  time  earnestly 
studied  even  in  the  Latin  Church,  and  held  to  be  the  norm  of 
faith?  Was  not  much  which  was  received  by  this  Church  act- 
ually grounded  in  the  Scriptures?  To  this  they  held.  The  rest 
they  let  go. 

''I  do  not  venture  to  say  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  estab- 
lishes dogmatically  the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  only 
an  effort  to  bring  back  the  system  developed  in  the  Latin  Church 
to  the  point  of  agreement  with  the  Scriptures,  or  to  a  conception 
of  the  Scriptures  in  the  original  spirit  of  the  Latin  Church, 
which  had  wrought  so  unconsciously  that  no  one  had  bound  him- 
self to  any  manifestation  of  it.  Our  Confession  is  its  purest,  its 
most  genuinely  Christian  manifestation,  as  it  proceeds  most  di- 
rectly from  its  source. ' '  * 

Friedrich  von  Bezold,  Professor  in  the  University  of  Erlangeu, 
has  written  as  follows:  "By  the  force  of  external  circumstances 
Melanchthon,  who  had  been  shoved  into  the  place  of  Luther, 
showed  himself  a  diplomatist  both  in  the  Confession  and  during 
the  negotiations  at  Augsburg.  It  could  perhaps  be  said  that  the 
Erasmian  qualities  of  this  learned  man  had  an  opportunity  for 
the  first  time  rightly  to  unfold  themselves,  when,  separated  from 
the  dominating  presence  of  Luther,  he  ventured  to  take  an  inde- 
pendent position.  Already  in  that  document,  which  originally 
was  not  regarded  ^s  a  confession,  but  as  an  'Apology,'  as  a  vin- 
dication against  the  Romish  accusations,  he  took  all  pains  to  ex- 
tend the  fraternal  hand  to  the  Catholics,  in  that  he  emphasized 
as  strongly  as  possible  the  connection  with  the  ancient  Church 
as  it  had  been  continually  maintained  by  Luther,  and  dropped 
into  the  background  the  irreducibly  divisive  elements  or  entirely 
passed  them  by  in  silence.  For  example,  the  divine  right  of  the 
papacy,  the  character  indeWbilis  of  the  priesthood,  the  sacraments 
as  numbering  seven,  remained  undiscussed,  while  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  a  form  was  selected  which  is  so  ambiguous 
that  the  Catholic  theologians  could  only  lament  the  lack  of  an 
express  recognition  of  transubstantiation.  The  harsh  doctrine  of 
predestination  was  omitted.  For  justification  by  faith  and  for 
other  evangelical  fundamental  doctrines  appeal  is  to  be  made  not 

*  Deutsche  Geschichte  im  Zeitalter  der  Reformation.  Dritter  Band. 
Siebente  Auflage,  pp.  173,  174. 


THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF   THE   AUGSBURC4    CONFESSION.  95 

only  to  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  but  also  to  that  of  the 
Church  Fathers.  The  entire  purpose  was  to  show  that  the  ex- 
elusion  of  the  Lutherans  from  the  Church  was  unjustifiable;  and 
to  exhibit  the  whole  controversy  in  the  harmless  light  of  a  'dif- 
ference in  regard  to  some  traditions  and  abuses.'  And  yet  ]\Iel- 
anchthon  feared  that  'many  would  take  offense  at  our  candor,' 
as  if  offense  with  the  opposite  party  could  have  been  avoided 
without  complete  submission !  Kanke  judges  not  incorrectly  that 
'the  doctrine  as  it  here  appears  is  yet  a  product  of  the  living 
spirit  of  the  Latin  Church,  which  still  existed  within  its  bosom. ' 
But  even  if  many  of  those  expressions  of  Catholic  princes  and 
prelates,  which  the  Protestant  tradition  has  reported,  be  recog- 
nized as  true,  it  was  nevertheless  a  prodigious  misconception  of 
the  nature  of  the  Romish  Church  to  suppose  that  there  remained 
the  possibility  of  any  other  agreement  than  that  between  victors 
and  vanquished.  From  the  beginning  Melanchthon  had  confi- 
dently reckoned  that  a  complete  renunciation  of  the  Zwinglians 
would  not  fail  to  make  its  impression  upon  the  Catholics  and 
upon  the  Emperor."  * 

Gustav  Kawerau,  formerly  Professor  of  theology  in  the  Uni-  / 
versity  of  Breslau,  now  at  Berlin,  after  briefly  reciting  the  his- 
tory of  the  composition  of  the  Confession,  continues  thus :  "The 
Augsburg  Confession  means  to  be  estimated  historically  as  a 
proof  that  the  Evangelical  Estates,  notwithstanding  their  inno- 
vations, belonged  to  the  CatJiolic  Church.  As  a  party  standing 
within  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  and  contending  for  the  right  of 
existence,  it  faced  the  opposing  party  in  an  effort  to  prove  its 
agreement  with  the  Church's  recognized  Articles  of  Faith  (nos 
nihil  docere  contra  ullum  fidei  articulum),  to  fortify  its  par- 
ticular form  of  doctrine  not  only  by  the  Scriptures,  but  also  with 
the  testimonies  of  recognized  Catholic  authorities,  and  to  prove 
that  all  its  innovations  concerned  the  abolition  of  the  abuses  that 
had  entered.  Hence  that  there  is  nothing  in  their  doctrine  which 
differs  from*  the  Scriptures  or  from  the  Catholic  Church  or  from 
the  Boman  Church  in  so  far  as  it  is  known  from  writers.  .  .  . 
The  entire  difference  has  reference  to  some  feiv  abuses.f  They 
separate  their  cause  as  sharply  as  possible  from  that  of  the 
Zwinglians  and  the  Anabaptists.     Their  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 

*  GescMchte  der  deutscJien  Eeformation,  pp.  619,  620. 

t  So  read  all  the  avithoritative  codiees  and  the  first  exemplars  of  the 
Editio  Frinceps.  See  Tschackert,  Die  unverdnderte  Augsb.  Konfession,  p. 
115,  note  24  Kolde,  Historische  Einleitung  in  die  Symb.  Biicher,  p.  xxii., 
note  3. 


'^. 


96  THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

Supper  they  conform  as  closely  as  possible  to  that  of  the  Cath- 
olics without  expressing  dissent  in  regard  to  transubstantiation. 
The  papacy,  'for  reasons/  is  absolutely  not  mentioned.    Its  doc- 
trinal articles  are  set  forth  in  harmony  with  the  scheme  of  the 
Catholic  Dogmatic.    Important  constituent  parts  of  the  Lutheran 
Gospel  (for  example,  the  Priesthood  of  Believers)  are  not  men- 
tioned.    Nevertheless,  JMelanchthon  succeeded  here  in  bringing 
the  Reformation  doctrine  of  salvation  to  classic  expression,  and 
upon  decisive  points  again  and  again  he  showed  its  importance 
with  telling  effect  (especially  in  Art.  20).    And  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  despite  the  harking  back  to  ecclesiastical  authorities,  the 
normative  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  still  made  decisive. ' '  * 
J        Theodor  Kolde,  Professor  in  the  University  of  Erlangen,  a 
specialist  in  the  department  of  Symbolics,  passes  judgment  on 
rthe  Confession  as  follows:    "From  its  origin  is  to  be  explained 
I  the  tone  and  the  peculiar  character  of  the  Confession.     It  is  at 
once  a  confession  and  an  apology,  and  is  intended  to  promote  the 
cause  of  peace  and  to  repel  the  reproach  of  departure  from  the 
original  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  of  fellowship  with  the  sects. 
And  the  entire  first  part  (Articuli  praecipui  fidei.  Arts.  1-21) 
serves  to  show  that  the  Evangelicals  agree  with  the   Catholic 
Church,  and  where  they  have  perhaps  departed  from  the  tradi- 
tional form  of  doctrine,  in  this  they  wish  to  restore  the  original 
true  doctrine  of  the  Church  to  the  place  of  honor.     In  so  far, 
Ranke  is  not  wrong  when  he  says  'that  the  doctrine  as  it  here 
appears  is  yet  a  product  of  the  living  spirit  of  the  Latin  Church, 
I  which  still  existed  in  the  bosoin  of  the  same. '    Many  points  which 
1  we  to-day  regard  as  very  important,  and  which  even  then  were 
so,  are  not  treated.    The  author  was  content,  for  instance,  to  con- 
fess the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  Baptism,  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
I         in  a  few  generic  words.f  There  is  no  rejection  of  the  other  Romish 
\       sacraments,  and  Confession  and  Repentance  are  introduced  in  a 
1  way  that  does  not  exclude  the  possibility  of  conceiving  that  Re- 
pentance is  also  a  sacrament.    Transubstantiation  is  not  rejected, 
and  the  sole  authority  of  the  Scriptures  is  not  emphasized  as  a 
principle.    And  thus  we  can  still  find  much  wanting  in  it  which 
the  love  of  peace  and  necessity  for  united  action  at  that  time 

*  Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengescliichtc;  3.  Aviflage,  III.,  108,  109.  Kawerau 
notes  the  fact  that  the  Lutherans  continued  till  1546  to  represent  themselves 
as  having  not  departed  in  their  Confession  from  the  consensus  of  the  Catholic 
Church.     Kircheng.,  3.  Auflage,  III.,  108,  note  4. 

t  Melanehthon  says,  in  a  letter  to  Veit  Dietrich:  "There  is  in  it  (the 
A.  C.)  an  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper  according  to  Luther's  view."  C. 
E.  IL,  142. 


THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    COXFESSIOX.  97 

regarded  as  not  well  to  insist  upon.  Luther  would  certainly 
have  expressed  himself  very  differently  (Conf.  De  Wette,  IV., 
110),  though  the  Confession  contains  nothing  un-Lutheran.  And 
despite  the  fact  that  the  author  had  changed  so  much  in  it,  it 
has  from  beginning  to  end  a  uniform  character,  and  by  means 
of  the  emphasis  which  it  lays  upon  justification  by  faith  alone  in 
the  fourth  article,  around  which,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  other 
articles  are  grouped,  and  through  which  they  receive  their  real 
confirmation,  it  brings  the  faith  of  the  new  evangelical  churches 
to  expression  in  an  unique  way. ' '  * 

These  four. estimates  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  agree  in  es- 
sentials. The  eminent  authors  regard  the  Confession  as  Catholic, 
as  Lutheran,  as  evangelical,  but  at  the  same  time  they  hold  that 
it  is  defective,  and  that  it  falls  short  of  being  a  clear  and  full 
expression  of  Lutheranism.  They  all  note  the  presence  of  the 
Catholic  traditional  teaching  and  the  appeal  to  the  Fathers  of 
the  Church.  Alike  they  declare  that  the  entire  Confession  is 
ruled  by  the  article  of  justification  by  faith,  which,  without  ques- 
tion, is  a  distinct  Lutheran  conception,  since  Luther  almost  from 
the  beginning  of  his  reformatory  career  had  regarded  that  as 
"the  article  of  a  standing  and  of  a  falling  Church,"  meaning 
that  the  Church  would  stand  so  long  as  she  held  fast  by  this  ar- 
ticle, and  would  fall  so  soon  as  she  let  go  this  article.  Three  of 
our  authors  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  several  doctrines 
peculiar  to  Rome's  teaching,  as  well  as  articles  on  which  the 
Reformers  had  laid  great  stress,  are  omitted  from  the  discussion 
in  the  interest  of  peace  and  of  the  desire  on  the  part  of  the  con- 
fessors to  make  good  their  claim  to  be  regarded  as  members  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  to  be  distinguished  from  the  heretics 
whom  the  Catholic  Church  had  condemned.  Three  of  them  refer 
specifically  to  the  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper  and  remark  its 
close  approximation  to  the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  on  the  subject,  the  ambiguity  of  the  form  of  statement, 
and  the  silence  in  regard  to  transubstantiation,  which  had  been 
most  emphatically  rejected  by  all  the  Reformers.  Three  of  them 
declare  that  the  Confession  is  a  product  of  the  spirit  which  still 
lived  in  the  Catholic  Church. 

These  estimates  are  generic  rather  than  specific;  but  it. cannot 

be  denied  that  they  well  describe  the  Confession,  both  as  to  what 

^it  is  and  as  to  what  it  is  not.     They  exhibit  the  Confession  as 

]  Lutheran  in  a  negative  and  apologetic,  rather  than  in  a  positive 

*  Bealencyclopadie,   3.     Auflage,   Art.     Augsb.   Bekenntnis. 

7     ■ 


98  THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

and  aggressive  sense.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  the  churches  of 
the  Evangelicals  taught  all  that  is  contained  in  this  Confession. 
In  so  far  there  was  no  misrepresentation.  But  there  is  misrep- 
resentation if  we  take  into  consideration  the  compass  of  the  teach- 
ing in  the  churches  of  the  Princes  and  commissioners  who  had 
signed  the  Confession.  The  divine  right  of  the  papacy,  the 
character  indelehilis  of  the  priesthood,  the  Romish  theory  of  the 
sacraments,  the  opus  operatum,  purgatory,  and  the  worship  of 
saints,  had  been  denounced  in  the  churches  times  almost  without 
number,  and  in  language  the  most  positive  and  bitter.  All  this 
is  passed  over  in  silence  by  the  Confession  as  it  was  read  and 
delivered  to  the  Emperor.  The  doctrine  of  the  universal  priest- 
hood of  believers,  the  doctrine  of  the  sole  authority  of  the  Script- 
ures in  matters  of  faith  and  salvation,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
ecclesia  invisibilis  as  the  essential  Church  in  distinction  from 
the  ecclesiastical  organization — these  doctrines,  which  had  been 
preached  in  the  churches  and  had  been  taught  in  the  schools  and 
had  been  discussed  in  a  widely  disseminated  literature,  find  no 
place  in  the  Confession. 

Therefore,  while  firmly  maintaining  that  the  doctrinal  articles 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  express  no  doctrine  that  is  un- 
Lutheran  or  imevangelical,  that  is,  that  is  incapable  of  a  Luth- 
eran and  an  evangelical  interpretation,  we  cannot  hold  that  the 
statement  made  at  the  close  of  Article  XXI.,  viz.,  that  the  doc- 
trinal articles  constitute  about  the  sum  of  the  doctrine  preached 
and  taught  in  the  churches  of  the  subscribing  Princes  and  cities 
is  correct.  And  by  no  means  do  we  hold,  as  already  we  have 
indicated,  that  "the  entire  difference  has  reference  to  some  few 
abuses."  At  the  bottom  of  the  whole  Reformation  movement, 
and  at  every  step  of  its  progress,  was  the  question  of  doctrine, 
which  has  controlled  and  shaped,  and  which  still  controls  and 
shapes,  the  course  of  Lutheranism.  Hence  we  do  not  wonder  that 
Luther  should  find  fault  with  the  Confession  for  consciously  pass- 
ing over  certain  important  articles.* 

*  Enders,  Luther's  Brief wechsel,  8,  p.  133.  The  tactics  and  diplomacy 
of  Melanchthon  at  Augsburg  and  the  deficiencies  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion in  its  omissions  of  certain  important  articles  of  Lutheran  teachings 
have  furnished  a  subject  for  frequent  comment  by  Protestant  and  Catholic 
historians.  See  Eine  Katholische  Beleuchtung  der  Augshurgischen  Kon- 
fession  (1898)  by  Professor  Tieme,  of  Leipzig,  p.  31.  Also  see  article  by 
Pastor  in  the  Catholic  KirclienlexiTcon,  I.,  1644-5,  who  notices  the  omission 
of  "alone"  from  the  article  on  Justification,  and  says:  "The  few  devia- 
tions from  the  old  doctrine  are  stated  so  vaguely  and  cautiously  that  an 
agreement  must  appear  easy.  Of  several  deviations  it  is  expressly  declared 
that  they  do  not  touch  the  essence  of  the  doctrine.     Several  doctrines  are 


THI<:    CHARACTKKIi^TICS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    COXFESSIOX.  99 

But  we  have  now  to  do  with  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  it  is, 
and  not  with  our  conception  of  what  it  ought  to  be.  Its  defi- 
ciencies we  may  deplore.  Its  contents  make  it  the  fundamental 
Confession  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  which  began  its 
existence  as  a  particular  Church  the  moment  this  Confession  was 
delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  June  25,  1530. 

2.  The  Scheme  of  the  Confession. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  is  not  a  system  of  theology,  and 
was  not  meant  to  be  such.  It  does  not  contain  all  the  articles 
usually  embraced  in  a  system  of  theology.  For  instance,  it  has 
no  article  on  Holy  Scripture,  none  on  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  yet 
the  articles  are  not  brought  together  in  an  arbitrary  manner.  In 
the  main  they  follow  each  other  in  logical  order,  and  are  through- 
out ruled  by  a  principle,  that  is,  they  have  a  common  center  in 
the  Article  of  Justification,  in  the  sense  that  other  articles  serve 
as  the  presupposition  of  this  Article  or  receive  their  special  form 
and  complexion  from  this  Article :  The  first  three  articles,  which 
treat,  respectively,  of  the  "one  divine  essence,"  of  Sin,  of  Christ, 
form  the  objective  ground  for  the  fourth  Article,  which  teaches 
that  man  is  not  justified  by  reason  of  his  own  merits  and  works, 
but  freely  for  the  sake  of  Christ  hy  faith.  With  this  Article  the 
next  two  are  organically  joined.  This  faith  that  justifies  is  ob- 
tained through  the  preaching  of  the  "Word  and  the  administra- 
tion of  the  sacraments,  which  are  the  means  of  grace  employed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  (Art.  V.)  ;  and  this  same  faith  brings  forth 
good  fruit  in  obedience  to  the  will  of  God,  and  is  itself  restated 
in  words  attributed  to  St.  Ambrose  (Art.  VI.).  Then,  in  logical 
order,  comes  the  Article  on  the  Church  (VII.),  which  is  the  con- 
gregation of  all  who  possess  this  justifying  faith  and  have  in 
common  the  preaching  of  the  Word  and  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments  as  noted  in  Article  VI.  And  to  provide  against  the 
supposition  that  the  means  of  grace  can  be  effective  only  when 
ministered  by  godly  men,  it  is  declared  that  it  is  lawful,  and 
hence  not  inefficacious,  to  use  the  ministry  of  ungodly  men,  since 
the  Word  and  sacraments  are  of  divine  appointment,  and  hence 
have  objective  validity,  or  a  validity  not  dependent  upon  the 
character  of  the  ministrant.  Articles  IX.  and  X.  particularize 
in  regard  to  the  sacraments,  declaring,  respectively,  that  God's 

passed  over  in  silence,  especially  that  of  the  Primacy,  of  indulgences  and  of 
purgatory."  See  Jansen,  GeschicJite  des  deutschen  FolJces,  17th  and  18th 
editions,  vol.  III.,  185  et  seqq. 


100         THE    CHARACTERISTICS   OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

grace  is  offered  in  the  one,  and  that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  present  and  are  administered  in  the  other;  while  in  Articles 
XI.  and  XII.,  which  form  the  sacrament  of  absolution  or  repent- 
ance (see  Apology,  Art.  XIII.),  it  is  declared  that  those  who, 
after  their  baptism,  have  fallen,  can  obtain  forgiveness  of  sin, 
provided  they  repent  and  believe  in  the  Gospel ;  and  Article  XIII. 
completes  the  discussion  of  the  sacraments  by  describing  them  as 
signs  of  grace  (see  Apology,  Art.  XXIV.,  C).  In  Articles  XIV. 
and  XV.  the  Confession  turns  to  the  external  organization  of 
the  Church,  to  the  call  of  the  ministry  and  to  the  proper  ob- 
servance of  ecclesiastical  rites.  Article  XVI.  declares  that  civil 
government  is  an  ordinance  of  God,  and  that  Christians  may 
hold  public  office,  discharge  the  duties  of  subjects  and  enjoy  the 
benefits  of  society.  And  in  contrast  with  the  order  of  this  world, 
we  are  taught  in  Article  XVII.  that  Christ  wdll  come  at  the  end 
of  the  world  to  raise  the  dead  and  to  judge  all  men  and  to  assign 
them  their  portion  forever. 

These  first  seventeen  articles  form  the  trunk  of  the  Confession. 
They  are  followed  by  four,  which  not  only  supplement,  but  sup- 
ply independent  testimony.  They  relate  to  the  appropriation  of 
salvation  and  to  the  Christian  life.  Article  XVIII.  recognizes 
the  ability  of  man  to  work  civil  righteousness,  but  denies  his 
ability  to  work  spiritual  righteousness  without  the  grace  and  as- 
sistance of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Article  XIX.  supplements  Article 
II.  by  declaring  that  not  God,  but  the  will  of  the  devil  and  of  the 
ungodly  is  the  cause  of  sin.  Article  XX.  supplements  Article 
IV.  by  reaffirming  that  man  is  justified  by  faith  for  the  sake  of 
Christ,  and  that  this  is  "the  most  important  article  of  the 
Gospel":  and  it  supplements  Article  VI.  by  declaring  yet  more 
fully  that  good  works  must  follow  faith ;  while  Article  XXI.  de- 
clares that  we  may  imitate  the  faith  and  works  of  the  saints,  but 
that  the  Scriptures  do  not  teach  that  they  are  to  be  invoked. 

We  thus  see  that  justification  by  faith  is  the  ruling  thought 
of  the  first,  or  doctrmaTTpart  of  the  Confession.  It  is  this  fact, 
preeminently,  that  makes  the  Confession  Lutheran,  and  that  saves 
it  from  the  reproach  of  being  a  conglomerate  of  doctrines  brought 
together  without  regard  to  a  common  center  around  which  the 
articles  are  grouped,  and  without  a  principle  to  impart  the  qual- 
ity of  unity  to  the  entire  scheme.  Hence  justification  by  faith 
has  been  called  the  material  principle  of  Lutheran  Protestantism, 
by  which  is  meant  not  that  all  the  doctrines  of  Lutheranism  are 
derived  from  that  Article,  but  that,  as  already  said,  they  all  take 


THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  101 

their  form  and  complexion  from  the  fundamental  thought  that 
men  are  justified  by  faith  for  the  sake  of  Christ. 

And  none  the  less  does  this  fundamental  thought  rule  in  the 
second  part  of  the  Confession.  "As  in  the  first,  so  in  the  second 
part,  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  is  the  fundamental 
evangelical  doctrine,  which  forms  the  rule  for  the  evangelical 
character  of  ecclesiastical  institutions.  The  fundamental  error 
of  the  Mass  is  that  it  is  meant  to  be  a  justifying  work  (Art.  3), 
and  yet  the  Scriptures  teach  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone. 
In  regard  to  Confession  it  is  observed  that  satisfactions  are  prac- 
ticed without  mentioning  the  righteousness  of  faith  (Art.  4). 
The  first  doubt  raised  against  the  traditions  is :  '  The  doctrine  of 
grace  and  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  whicJi  is  the  principal 
part  of  the  Gospel,  is  obscured,  though  it  ought  to  stand  out  and 
be  exalted  in  the  Church,  so  that  the  merit  of  Christ  be  properly 
recognized,  and  that  faith,  which  believes  that  sins  are  pardoned 
for  the  sake  of  Christ,  be  placed  far  above  all  works'  (Art.  5). 
Twice  more  is  it  emphasized  in  this  Article  that  the  dangerous 
feature  of  those  traditions  is  the  thought  that  by  this  means  grace 
can  be  acquired.  In  regard  to  monasticism  it  is  repeatedly  em- 
phasized that  it  especially  prejudices  justification  by  faith.  Also 
in  the  Article  on  spiritual  power  it  is  declared  that  the  enact- 
ments of  the  Bishops  have  prejudiced  the  doctrine  of  justifica- 
tion (Art.  7). 

"From  this  presentation  it  is  evident  that  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession holds  justification  by  faith  as  the  fundamental,  the  car- 
dinal, doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  which  must  determine  all  the  doc- 
trines and  forms  of  the  Church.  When  in  the  fifth  Article  of 
the  first  part  it  says :  '  By  the  word  and  sacraments  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  given,  who  works  faith  in  those  who  hear  the  Gospel, 
namely,  that  God,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  receives  us  into  grace, ' 
we  realize  that  justification  by  faith  is  set  forth  as  the  sum  of 
the  Gospel.  The  same  is  said  in  Article  20,  in  which  not  merely 
the  history  of  the  Gospel,  but  also  the  effect  of  the  Gospel,  is 
designated  as  a  matter  of  true  faith :  '  This  article,  namely,  the 
pardon  of  sins,  namely,  that  through  Christ  we  have  grace, 
righteousness  and  the  pardon  of  sins. '  "  * 

Professor  0.  Zockler  has  judged  the  Confession  in  the  same 

way.    He  calls  Article  IV.  "the  most  concentrated  expression  of 

the  Reformation  consciousness,"  and  declares  that  that  Article 

"must  be  regarded  as  the  ruling  center,  though  the  two  follow- 

*  Kahnis,  Die  Lutlierische  Bogmatik,  II.,  pp.  432-3. 


102         THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

ing  articles  form  the  necessary  supplements,  in  so  far  as  Article 
5,  Of  the  Ministerial  Office,  points  to  the  root,  and  Article  6, 
Of  New  Ohediefice,  to  the  fruit  of  justifying  faith."  He  holds 
that  the  first  seventeen  articles  contain  the  fundamental  course 
of  thought;  that  the  next  four  are  supplementary,  and  that  the 
seven  articles  of  the  second  part  form  a  supplementary  excursus. 
In  accordance  with  these  general  conceptions,  Zqckler  has  con- 
structed the  following  scheme  of  the  Confession :      0  ^ 

I.  Fundamental  Part. 

(Fundamental  Statement  of  the  Doctrine  of  Salvation  according 

to  its  Chief  Factors). 

[Art.  1-6  and  supplementary  Articles  18-21]. 

a)  The  Presuppositions  of  Salvation  : 

Art.  1.   God. 

Art.  2.   Sin — its  Effect  on  Free-will  (Art.  18)  and  its  Cause 

(Art.  19). 
Art.  3.  The  Redeemer — (Prejudice  to  his  sole  Mediatorship 

through  the  Worship  of  the  Saints  (Art.  21). 

b)  Salvation  itself  :  * 

Art.  4.  Justification. 

Art.  5.  The  Word  of  God  and  the  Min- 
isterial Office  the  ground  of  Jus- 
tification. 

Art.  6.  The  New  Obedience  as  Fruit  of 
•Justification. 


Faith 

and    (Art.  20). 
Works 


II.  Special-soteriological  Part. 
(The  Mediation  of  Salvation  in  the  Church). 
[Art.  7-17  and  practical-polemical  Articles  22-28] . 
a)  The  Objective  Mediation  of  Salvation  in  the  Church, 
a)  The  Church  and  the  Means  of  Grace  in  Themselves  : 

Art.  7,  8. 
/S)  The  Sacraments  of  the  Church  : 
Art.  9.   Baptism. 
Art.  10.   Lord's  Supper  (Both  Forms  :    A.  22  ;  Mass  :    A. 

24). 
Art.  11,  12.   Confession,  Repentance — (Worship  and  Disci- 
pline in  Relation  to  Confession  :  A.  25). 
Art.  13.  The  Use  of  the  Sacraments. 
y)  The  Service  of  the  Church  or  the  Office  of  the  Means  of 
Grace  : 


THE    CHARACTERISTICS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  103 

Art.  14.  Church    Government— (Consecration    of    Priests  : 
Art.  23  ;  Power  of  the  Bishops  :  Art.  28). 
b)  The  Subjective  or  Ethical  INIediation  of  Salvation, 
a)  Its  Realization  in  this  Life. 

1.  Art.  15  in  the  Regulations  of  the  Church— (for  example  : 

Distinction  of  Meats  :  A.  26). 

2.  Art.  16  in  the  State  and  in  the  Family—  (Compare  the  Ar- 

ticles on  Priesthood  [23]  and  Cloister- vows  [27]). 
/5)  Their  Final  Consummation  through 
Art.  17.  The  Return  of  Christ.* 

*  Die  Augsburgische  Confession,  p.  95. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ANALYSIS  OF  THE  AUGSBURG   CONFESSION, 

The  Augsburg  Confession  consists  of  four  distinct,  but  closely 
related  parts: 

1.  The  Preface,  which  introduces  the  Confession,  r£cites  the 
occasion  of  its  composition,  the  end  had  in  view  by  the  evangeli- 
cal Princes  in  presenting  their  Confession,  and  their  appeal  to  a 
general  free  council. 

2.  The  Principal  Articles  of  Faith  ( Articuli  Fidei  Praecipui : 
Artickel  Christlicher  Lahr),  commonly  spoken  of  as  Part  I. 
This  part  contains  twenty-one  articles,  and  exhibits  "about 
the  sum  of  the  doctrine"  taught  in  the  churches  of  the  sub- 
scribers. 

3.  The  Articles  on  Abuses  (Articuli  in  quibus  recensentur 
Abusus  mutati).  This  part  contains  seven  articles,  and  is  spoken 
of  as  Part  II. 

4.  The  Epilogue,  which  states  that  the  principal  abuses  have 
been  recounted,  and  that  the  subscribers  are  prepared  to  fur- 
nish additional  information,  should  it  be  required. 

In  the  codices*  of  the  Confession,  in  the  Melanchthon  editions 
of  the  same,  in  the  first  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord  (1580) 
Germanf  and  Latin,  the  articles  of  Part  I.  are  given  without 
titles.  In  the  Latin  editio  princeps,  and  in  the  older  Latin  editions 
generally,  these  articles  are  numbered  I.,  II.,  III.,  etc.  In  the 
German  thus :  Der  Erste,  Der  Ander,  Der  Dritte.  But  in  the 
German  Book  of  Concord,  first  official  edition,  they  are  numbered 
thus :  Der  I.  Artickel,  Der  II.  Artickel.$  In  the  first  Authentic 
Latin  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord  (1584)  these  articles  have 
the  same  titles  that  appear  in  modern  editions  of  the  Confes- 
sion.! 

In  all  the  editions  and  recensions  of  the  Confession  that  have 

*  Except  that  Article  XX.  in  the  codices  has  as  title :  Vom  Glauben  und 
Werken.   De  fide  et  bonis  operibus.    Tschackert,  p.  102. 

t  Art.  XX.  has  as  title:   Vom  Glauben  imd  "Werken. 

t  Following  the  example  of  Coelestin,  Historia,  II.,  fol.  151  et  seqq. 

§  Following  the  example  of  Coelestin.  ibid.,  II.,  fol.  177  et  seqq.,  but  not 
always  giving  the  same  titles  that  were  given  by  Coelestin. 

(104) 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  105 

come  to  our  notice,  the  Articles  on  Abuses,  both  Latin  and  Ger- 
man, have  titles. 

,  In  the  following  analysis  of  the  Articles,  we  introduce  each 
article  with  a  translation  of  the  title  given  in  the  Latin  Book  of 
Concord  of  1584.  But  our  analysis  is  confined  strictly  to  the 
Confession  as  it  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor,  as  the  same 
has  been  reproduced  from  authentic  codices  by  Professor 
Tschackert,*  for  this,  and  this  alone,  the  form  delivered  to  the 
Emperor,  must  forever  be  held  as  the  true,  original,  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession,  the  editio  princeps  being  already  a  varied 
edition,  and  the  later  Melanchthon  editions  being  still  more 
varied.!  And  further :  We  place  the  German  and  the  Latin  texts 
exactly  on  a  par  as  regards  authority,  though  they  do  not 
always  agree  perfectly  in  their  representations.  And  when  we, 
appeal  to  the  Apology,  this  is  done  for  the  reason  that  the  Apol- 
ogy, though  an  after-thought,  and  polemical  in  tone,  is,  never- 
theless, the  most  authoritative  explanation  of  the  Confession. 

1.     Analysis  of  Part  I. 
Art.  I.    Of  God. 

1.  The  unity  of  the  divine  essence  and  the  trinity  of  persons. 

2.  The  one  divine  essence  is  God,  with  infinite  attributes: 
' '  Creator  of  all  things,  visible  and  invisible. ' ' 

3.  The  three  persons  are  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  of  the 
same  essence  and  power,  and  co-eternal. 

4.  Person  signifies  not  a  part  or  a  quality  in  another,  but 
that  which  subsists  by  itself.  In  Greek :  Hypostasis.  Subsistence, 
not  to  be  confounded  with  substance, 

5.  Appeal  to  the  Council  of  Nice,  A.  D.  325.  (The  first  Gen- 
eral Council  of  the  Church.) 

6.  Rejection  of  the  heresies  rejected  by  the  early  Church : 

(a)  The  ]\Ianichgeans,  who  from  the  3d  to  the  7th  century 
taught  that  there  are  two  eternal  antagonistic  principles,  light 
and  darkness,  the  one  the  author  of  all  good,  the  other  the  author 
of  all  evil. 

(b)  The  Valentinians,  a  Gnostic  sect,  arose  about  the  middle 
of  the  2d  century,  and  taught  the  existence  of  thirty  eons,  who  had 
proceeded  from  the  First  Cause. 

(c)  Arians,  followers  of  Arius  (about  318),  asserted  that 
Christ  was  similar  to  God,  but  not  very  God. 

*  Die  unveranderte  Augsburgische  Konfession,  Leipzig,  1901. 
t  See  Chapter  XIV. 


106  ANALYSIS   OF    THE    AUGSBURG   CONFESSION. 

(d)  Eunomians,  4th  century,  who  held  that  Christ  was  cre- 
ated, and  subordinate. 

(e)  ^Mahometans,  followers  of  Mahomet  (7th  century),  who 
teach  that  Christ  is  a  great  prophet,  but  not  the  Son  of  God  in 
essence. 

(f)  Samosatanians,  old  (followers  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  3d 
century)  and  new  (perhaps  Lewis  Hetzer  and  John  Campanus), 
who  denied  the  antenatal  and  personal  deity  of  Christ,  and  held 
that  the  Word  is  only  the  voice,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
motion  created  in  things. 

Art.  II.     Op  the  Sin  of  Origin. 

1.  The  universality  of  sin :   "All  men. " 

2.  Propagated  by  natural  generation  :  ' '  Conceived  and  born 
with  sins."   The  fall  of  Adam. 

3.  Description  of  the  sin  of  origin:  Negative:  "Without 
true  fear  of  God  and  without  true  faith  in  God. ' '  Positive :  Dis- 
ease and  corruption  of  human  nature  in  its  origin.  "These  are 
the  chief  faults  of  human  nature,  conflicting  especially  with  the 
first  table  of  the  Decalogue."  Apology. 

4.  The  evil  effect  of  the  sin  of  origin :  Condemns  and  brings 
eternal  death. 

5.  Remedy  for  the  sin  of  origin  :  Regeneration : 

(a)  By  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  efficient  cause. 

(b)  Through  Baptism,  as  a  means  of  grace.  (See  Art.  V.) 
"Baptism  removes  the  imputation  of  original  sin."   Apology. 

6.  Condemnation  of  the  Pelagians  and  of  others  (perhaps 
Zwingli  is  included),  who  deny  that  the  sin  of  origin  is  sin. 

7.  Such  detract  from  the  sufferings  and  merit  of  Christ,  and 
make  justification  before  God  a  human  acquisition. 

Art.  III.    Op  the  Son  of  God. 
This  Article  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  person,  the  states, 
the  work  of  Christ. 

1.  He  is  the  Son  of  God.  He  became  man  by  being  born  of 
the  Virgin  Mary.  Has  two  natures  united  in  one  person.  Is  true 
God  and  true  man.   The  hypostatic  union. 

2.  The  State  of  Humiliation : 

(a)  Conception,  birth  and  circumcision. 

(b)  Education  and  visible  intercourse  with  men.  Matt. 
13  :  55 ;  Luke  2 :  48. 

(c)  Passion  on  the  Cross. 


ANALYSIS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG   CONFESSION.  107 

(d)     Death  and  burial. 

3.  State  of  Exaltation :  * 

(a)  Resurrection  from  the  dead. 

(b)  Ascension  to  Heaven. 

(c)  Session  at  the  Right  Hand  of  God.  Theanthropos. 
("Everything  that  is  said  about  the  Humiliation  and  Exaltation 
of  Christ  is  to  be  assigned  to  the  Maw,  for  the  divine  nature  can 
be  neither  humbled  nor  exalted.  .  .  .  Although  the  two  natures 
are  distinct,  yet  the  person  is  one,  so  that  all  that  Christ  does  and 
suffers,  God  has  truly  done  and  suffered,  even  though  it  happen 
to  only  one  nature. ' '    Luther,  Kirchenpostille.  XII.  210) . 

4.  The  Offices  of  Christ: 

(a)  Is  Mediator  between  God  and  man.  "Christ  suffered  and 
died  to  reconcile  the  Father  to  us."  Apology. 

(b)  As  Priest  offering  himself  a  sacrifice  for  all  the  sins  of 
men.    Priestly  Office. 

(c)  As  Sanctifier  of  believers  through  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Prophet.  King.  ,("He  has  risen  again,  to  reign,  and  to  justify 
and  sanctify  believers  " ) .  Apology. 

(d)  As  Judge  of  the  living  and  of  the  dead  at  his  second 
coming.  Art.  XVII.  (Expansion  of  Part  II.  of  the  Apostles' 
Creed). 

Art.  IV.    Op  Justification. 

1.  The  ground  of  Man's  Justification  before  God. 

(a)  Negative:  Not  his  own  person,  nor  work,  nor  holiness. 
Xo  mcritum  de  congruo  nor  merifum  de  condigno. 

(b)  Positive:  For  the  sake  of  Christ,  who  suffered  and  died 
for  us.  Christ  the  all-sufficient  Reconciler  and  Mediator.  The 
meritorious  Cause. 

2.  The  human  condition:  Faith — not  as  something  meri- 
torious, but  as  instrument  of  appropriation.  Instrumental  cause. 
"Christ  is  not  apprehended  as  :\Iediator,  except  by  faith." 
Apology. 

3.  Its  source  :  The  grace  of  God.  "The  promise,  and,  that  too, 

*  Of  the  Descensus  ad  Inferos  Musaeus  (Epit.  Form.  Concordiae,  p.  313) 
says:  "Tot  opiniones  quot  capita,"  and  that  the  adherents  of  the  Augs- 
biirg  Confession  of  his  day  differed  widely  in  regard  to  this  article.  Up 
to  and  during  the  year  1530  Luther  regarded  it  as  belonging  to  the  hunulia- 
tion  of  Christ.  In  his  sermon  at  Torgau,  in  1533,  he  assigned  it  to  the 
Exaltation  of  Christ.  See  TJie  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  July,  1889,  p.  40/. 
The  Formula  of  Concord  treats  it  as  a  part  of  the  Exaltation.  So  the 
dogmatieians,  as  a  rule.  In  the  Confession  the  Descensus  "is  neither 
explained  nor  assigned  to  the  Exaltation."  Baumgarten,  Erleuterungen, 
p.  41 


108  ANALYSIS   OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

gratuitous,  and  the  merits  of  Christ,  as  the  price  and  propitia- 
tion." Apology. 

4.  Its  character:  A  free  gift.  Imputation.  "This  faith  God 
imputes  for  righteousness."  ''This  faith,  encouraging  and  con- 
soling in  these  fears,  receives  remission  of  sins,  justifies  and 
quickens. ' '    Apology. 

5.  The  faith  that  justifies  is  special,  is  personal.  The  believer 
believes  that  he  himself  is  received  into  grace,  and  that  his  sins 
are  pardoned  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  Fides  est  fiducia.  {Um 
Christus  wiUen,  Propter  Christum,  specially  characteristic  of 
Melanchthon ) . 

6.  Justification  an  instantaneous  act  of  God.  It  occurs  the 
moment  men  believe. 

7.  The  doctrine  founded  in  the  Scriptures.  Rom.  III.  and  IV. 
"Upon  this  Article  depend  all  things  which  we  preach  and 

practice  against  the  Pope,  the  devil,  and  the  whole  world.  There- 
fore, we  must  be  sure  concerning  this  doctrine,  and  not  doubt." 
Luther  in  the  Schmalkald  Articles.  Part  Second,  I. 

Art.  V.   Of  the  Ministry  of  the  Church. 

1.  Note  the  connection  of  this  Article  with  the  preceding 
article :   ' '  This  faith ' ' — the  way  in  which  it  is  obtained. 

2.  Through  the  means  of  grace — the  Word  and  the  Sacra- 
ments. The  instrumental  cause  of  justifying  faith. 

3.  By  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  employs  the 
means  of  grace  as  instruments.  He  is  the  efficient  cause  of  faith. 
"Works  faith  "where  and  when  he  will." 

(a)  Place  and  time  are  in  God's  keeping.  ("As  and  where 
he  will. ' '  Schwabach  Arts.  VII. ) . 

(b)  In  those  who  hear  the  Gospel.  All  are  meant.  Particular- 
istic Predestination  is  excluded.* 

4.  The  preached  Word  the  chief  means  of  grace,  referred  to 
four  times.   Sacraments,  the  subordinate  means  of  grace.f 

(Sacraments  not  mentioned  in  the  corresponding  Marburg  and 
Schwabach  Articles,  VIII.,  VII.). 

5.  The  message  of  the  Gospel:  That  God,  for  Christ's  sake, 
justifies  those  who  believe. 

6.  God  instituted  the  ministerial  office. 
(a)     It  is,  therefore,  of  divine  origin. 

*  In  the  year  1531,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Brentz:  "In  the  Apology 
throughout  I  have  avoided  that  long  and  inexplicable  subject  of  Predesti- 
nation."    C.  E.   2:  547. 

t  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  July,  1894,  p.  362. 


ANALYSIS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  109 

(b)  Its  function  is  to  preach  the  Word,  and  to  administer 
the  sacraments. 

7.  Men  should  hear  the  Word  preached. 

(a)  As  Law  the  Word  of  God  reveals  sin  and  its  fruits. 

(b)  As  Gospel,  it  is  the  preaching  of  forgiveness  for  the  sake 
of  Christ,  and  works  faith.  "The  Gospel  freely  offers,  for 
Christ's  sake,  to  us  who  have  been  vanquished  by  sin  and  death, 
reconciliation,  which  is  received,  not  by  works,  but  by  faith 
alone."  Apology. 

8.  The  Anabaptists  are  condemned,  because  they  taught 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  can  be  received  by  human  preparation,  with- 
out the  external  Word.  By  ' '  and  others ' '  reference  is  supposed 
to  be  made  to  the  Papists,  to  Zwingli,  Carlstadt  and  Schwenck- 
feld.* 

"The  Holy  Ghost,  to  speak  in  proper  order,  gives  this  faith  or 
his  gift  to  no  one.  without  preaching,  or  the  Gospel  of  Christ 
preceding. ' ' 

Art.  VI.    Of  New  Obedience. 

1.  "That  faith,"  the  faith  that  justifies,  ought  to  produce 
good  fruits  and  good  works. 

2.  Good  works  do  not  precede,  they  follow  faith. 

3.  Their  necessity:    Debet,  Oportet.    Not  a  matter  of  choice. 

4.  Their  form :  Things  commanded  by  God.  ' '  We  speak  not 
of  ceremonies,  but  of  that  law  which  prescribes  in  regard  to  the 
motives  of  the  heart,  namely,  of  the  Decalogue.  Because  faith 
brings  the  Holy  Spirit  and  begets  a  new  life  in  hearts,  it  is 
necessary  that  it  produce  spiritual  affections  in  hearts."  Apol- 
ogy. 

5.  The  Motive : 

(a)  For  God's  sake:  Um  Gottes  willeu,  Propter  voluntatem 
Dei. 

(b)  Not  as  a  means  of  justification  before  God.  "We  receive 
remission  of  sin  and  righteousness  through  faith  in  Christ." 

6.  Appeal  to  the  Ancients.     Pseudo-Ambrose. 

.     Art.  VII.    Op  the  Church. 

1.  The  Church  defined:  The  assembly  of  all  believers.  The 
congregation  of  the  saints. 

2.  True  marks  of  the  Church :  The  pure  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  in  accordance 
with  the  Gospel. 

*  Baumgarten,  Erleuierungen,  p.  44;   Waleh,  Introductio,  p.  276. 


110  ANALYSIS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

3.  Nature  of  the  Church : 

(a)  One.  No  particular  Church  is  the  one  Church,  but  of  the 
one. 

(b)  Holy:  Because  in  essence  ''the  congregation  of  the 
Saints."   Ecclesia  invisihilis. 

(c)  Abiding.  It  must  be  and  abide  forever.  "For  this  King- 
dom of  Christ,  which  the  Holy  Spirit  vivifies,  always  exists." 
Apologij.  Matt.  16 :  18. 

(d)  Christian.    Christ  is  its  efficient  cause. 

4.  The  unity  of  the  Church  is  not  destroyed  by  dissimilar  rites 
and  traditions. 

5.  Consent  in  regard  to  the  teaching  of  the  Gospel  and  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments  is  sufficient. 

Art.  VIII.  What  is  the  Church  ? 

1.  Properly  the  Church  is  the  assembly  of  all  believers  and 
saints.   Art.  VII.    The  Ecclesia  invisihilis. 

2.  With  the  believers  and  saints  are  associated  hypocrites, 
false  Christians,  and  open  sinners,  not  living  members  of  the 
body  of  Christ:  The  empirical  Church.  Ecclesia  visibilis.  The 
ecclesiastical  organization.  "The  Church,  according  to  the  exter- 
nal participation  of  goods  and  rites. "  Apology.  "  Members  of  the 
Church,  according  to  the  external  fellowship  of  the  signs  of  the 
Church,  i.  e.,  of  Word,  profession  and  sacraments."  Apology. 

3.  The  ministration  of  the  Word  and  sacraments  is  of  divine 
appointment.  Their  essential  quality  is  not  changed  by  the  minis- 
trant,  who  does  not  represent  himself,  but  Christ.  Matt,  23  :  2. 

4.  The  validity  depends  upon  the  institution  of  Christ. 

5.  Lawful  to  use  sacraments  which  are  administered  by 
wicked  men. 

(a)  Wicked  in  life  and  conduct.* 

(b)  Not  heterodox  in  doctrine. 

'  *  Impious  teachers  are  to  be  deserted,  because  these  do  not  act 
any  longer  in  the  place  of  Christ,  but  are  antichrists."  Apology. 
"When,  therefore,  they  teach  wicked  things,  they  are  not  to  be 
heard."   Apology. 

6.  Rejection  of  the  Donatists  and  "all  others" — perhaps 
the  Wyklifites  are  meant — who  teach  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  use 

*  "Here  the  duty  of  ministers  to  be  in  a  state  of  grace  and  to  be  pious 
is  not  taught,  nor  is  the  full  equivalence  of  the  ministry  of  good  and  evil 
teachers  affirmed,  nor  is  even  the  necessary  exclusion  of  blasphemous  per- 
sons from  the  office  of  the  ministry  controverted."  Baumgarten,  Erleu- 
ierungen,  p.  50. 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  Ill 

the  ministry  of  the  ungodly,  and  hold  that  the  ministry  of  such 
is  ineffective. 

7.  The  means  of  grace  have  objective  validity.  The  immoral 
character  of  the  ministry  does  not  invalidate  them.  The  Holy 
Spirit  works  faith  by  them.   Art.  V, 

Art.  IX.   Of  Baptism. 

1.  Baptism  is  necessary  (German  text).  Necessary  to  salva- 
tion (Latin  text).* 

2.  The  grace  of  God  is  offered  by  Baptism. 

3.  Children  are  proper  subjects  for  Baptism. 

(a)  By  Baptism  children  are  presented  to  God.  (Sacrament 
of  initiation). 

(b)  By  Baptism  children  are  received  into  God's  favor — 
become  acceptable  to  God.f    (Means  of  grace.    Art.  V.). 

4.  Adults  are  not  excluded  from  Baptism  by  the  Article, 
(At  the  time  of  the  Reformation  there  were  but  few  adult 

baptisms  in  Germany.   Perhaps  all  the  people,  except  Jews,  had 
been  baptized  in  infancy). 

5.  The  Anabaptists,  who  teach  that  the  Baptism  of  Children 
is  not  right,  and  that  children  are  saved  without  Baptism,  are 
condemned. 

/Art.  X.      Of  the  Lord's  Supper. | 
1.     The  body  and  blood  of  Christ  (German:  ''True  body  and 

*  In  the  Apology  Melanchthon  repeats,  but  does  not  explain,  these  words : 
"Baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation."  It  is  a  theological  gloss  to  say  with 
Baumgarten :  "  To  be  understood  of  the  necessity  of  the  ordinary  means 
to  salvation  and  of  divine  command."  Erleuterungen,  p.  51.  The  inter- 
pretation given  by  Gerhard  is  forced  and  is  open  to  grave  objection:  "We 
teach  that  Baptism  is  indeed  the  ordinary  sacrament  of  initiation  and  the 
means  of  regeneration  absolutely  necessary  to  all,  even  to  the  children  of 
believers,  for  regeneration  and  salvation.  Meanwhile,  nevertheless,  in  the 
case  of  privation  or  of  impossibility,  the  children  of  Christians  are  saved 
by  an  extraordinary  and  special  divine  dispensation.  For  the  necessity  of 
Baptism  is  not  absolute,  but  ordinate."  Loci  IX.  (Cotta),  p.  282.  There 
is  no  proof  that  Melanchthon  meant  any  such  thing.  He  in  no  sense  quali- 
fies his  necessarius  (read  the  damnatory  paragraph  in  the  Latin  text). 
There  is  no  wonder  that  the  Catholic  Confutators  "approved  and  accepted" 
the  article ," concerning  Baptism — viz.,  that  it  is  necessary  to  salvation." 
In  the  "Variata"  Melanchthon  added:  "As  a  ceremony  instituted  by 
Christ."  Gerhard  declares  that  there  is  no  promise  appertaining  to  the 
children  born  outside  of  the  Church.  Such  he  commits  to  the  judgment  of 
God.     Ibid.,  p.  284. 

t  Very  properly  does  Dr.  Plitt  say :  ' '  Child-faith  is  not  a  doctrine  of 
the  symbols. ' '  Grundriss  der  SymboWk,  4te  Auflage,  p.  101.  As  proof,  he 
refers  to  The  Large  Catechism.  Miiller,  Die  Symb.  Biicher,  p.  494,  Sec. 
55,  57. 

t  This  tenth  article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  has  been,  and  is  still, 
I  interpreted  by  Eoman  Catholic  theologians  as  teaching  the  Roman  Catholic 


112  ANALYSIS   OF   THE   AUGSBURG   CONFESSION. 

true  blood")  are  truly  present  in  the  Lord's  Supper.     "Under 
the  form  of  bread  and  wine."  (German.) 

2.  The  body  and  blood  ("true  body  and  true  blood":  Ger- 
man) of  Christ  are  administered  to  the  communicants.  "There 
administered  and  received."  German.  (No  distinction  is  made 
between  worthy  and  unworthy  communicants.) 

3.  "Therefore  the  opposite  doctrine  is  also  rejected."  Ger- 
man text.  "And  they  disapprove  those  who  teach  otherwise." 
Latin  text. 

("The  brief  antithesis  of  this  article  was  without  doubt  di- 
rected against  the  so-called  Swiss  of  that  time. "  * ) 

I  doctrine   of   the   Lord's   Supper   in   its   essential   features.      See    Fabricius, 
Harmonia  Conf.  Augustanae  (1587),  pp.  188,  IS'O. 

What  the  Confutators  principally  desiderated  in  the  Confession,  namely, 
the  essentialiter  and  the  mutari,  that  Melanchthon  supplied  in  the  Apology, 
where  he  appeals  to  the  Mass  Canon  of  the  Greek  Church,  and  with  appro- 
bation quotes  Theophilact  of  Bulgaria:  Panem  uon  tantum  figuram  esse, 
sed  vere  in  carnem  mutari.  The  vere  et  substantialiter  adsint  in  the  Apol- 
ogy is  taken  from  the  Confutation.  The  words  in  the  German  text  of  the 
Confession:  Unter  der  gestalt  des  hrots  und  iceins  (Tschackert,  p.  88) 
do  not  express  the  genuine  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  In 
the  Large  Catechism  Luther  does  not  say :  ' '  Under  the  form  of  bread  and 
wine, ' '  but :  "In  and  under  the  bread  and  wine, ' '  which  distinctly  affirms 
the  presence  in  the  Lord's  Supper  of  the  bread  and  wine;  whereas,  in  the 
words  of  the  Confession,  we  have  the  very  language  of  the  Eoman  Catholic 
official  teaching.  See  the  Latin  Confutation:  Suh  specie  panis  et  vini. 
C.  E.  XXVIL,  106,  and  in  the  German  Confutation:  Unter  der  Gestalt  des 
Brods,  unter  der  Gestalt  Weins.  C.  E.  XXVIL,  196.  See  Denzinger's 
Enchiridion  Symbolorum  et  Definitionum,  Ed.  VII.,  Index,  p.  468,  under: 
Christus  fit  praesens  .  .  .  manentibus  duntaxat  speciebus  panis  et  vini,  and 
the  many  references  given.  See  Kolde,  Die  Augsb.  Konfession,  p.  35.  See- 
berg,  Dogmengeschichte,  II.,  330.     Loofs,  Bogmengeschichte,  p.  820. 

The  quae  videntur  in  the  Apology  is  ambiguous.  Every  tyro  in  Latin 
knows  that  it  can  just  as  well  be  translated:  "Which  seem"  (see  the 
Latin  dictionaries),  as  "Which  are  seen." 

"Article  10,  Of  the  Holy  Supper,  in  its  original  form  expi esses  the 
Catholic  doctrine  since  it  teaches  that  the  true  body  and  the  true  blood 
of  Christ  are  truly  present  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  are  admin- 
istered and  received."  Pastor,  in  Catholic  Kirchenlexikon  (1882),  I., 
p.  1644. 

Dr.  Calinich,  Head  Pastor  in  Hamburg,  a  learned  Lutheran  specialist 
on  the  Augsburg  Confession,  has  discussed  the  question :  ' '  Can  the  tenth 
Article  of  the  Augustana  be  understood  in  the  sense  of  transubstantiation  ? " 
!  Beyond  all  question  he  establishes  this  proposition :  "In  reality  there  is 
.  }io  expression  in  the  Confession  and  Apology  which  speaks  directly  against 
(the  conception  (Fassung)  of  transubstantiation,  and  not  one,  which  could 
I  not  also  be  interpreted  by  the  opponents  in  their  sense  for  transubstantia- 
Ition."  Zeitschrift  filr  wissenscliaftliche  Theologie  (1873),  pp.  541  et 
seqq.  The  question  is  not,  "What  was  Melanchthon 's  personal  view?"  but 
"What  did  he  concede  on  this  point  to  the  opponents  at  the  Diet  of  Augs- 
burg?" P.  549.  For  Melanchthon 's  personal  view  on  the  Lord's  Supper, 
see  C.  E.  II.,  222. 

*  Sehultze,  Handbuch  zur  Symbolischen  Theologie,  p.  46.  Erhard  Schnepf, 
in  his  Confessio  de  S.  Coena,  says  that  the  adverb  vere,  though  admitted  to 
be  ambiguous,  was  employed  because  not  one  of  all  those  who  adhered  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession  agreed  with  the  Zwinglians.  Quoted  by  Cyprian 
in  Hist,  der  Augsp.  Confession,  p.  56. 


ANALYSIS   OF   THE    AUGSBURG   CONFESSION.  113 

Art.   XI.     Of   Confession. 

1.  Private  Absolution,  which  presupposes  Private  Confes- 
sion, was  to  be  retained  in  the  churches  of  the  Confessors  (This 
is  the  office  of  the  Keys.) 

2.  The  enumeration  of  all  sins  is  not  necessary  For  this 
IS  nnpossible.    Ps.  19 :  13.   According  to  the  Vulgate,  18 :  13.* 

Art.  XII.     Of  Repentance. f 
This  Article  contains  four  leading  thoughts  in  the  thetical  part. 

1.  That  all  the  fallen,  who  repent  of  sins  committed  after 
Baptism,  can  at  any  time  return  to  the  grace  of  God. 

2.  That  the  Church  ougJd  (debeat)  to  grant  absolution  to 
such. 

3.  The  two  parts  of  faith : 

(a)     Contrition  and  sorrow  on  account  of  the  sin  committed. 

*i''^'lu*¥  ^^"*''  Lateran  Council,  1215  (Mansi,  22,  p.  1010)  it  was  r1p 
creed  that  everyone,  on  coming  to  years  of  discretion,  should  confess  all" 
sms,  at  least  once  a  year,  to  his  own  priest.  In  the  Lutheran  ChLh 
clurl^  S^fession  was  at  first  voluntary.    Later,  in  portions  of  the  Lutheran 

for"  the  Lours  Suonef '^'77^'  "'  i^  l'"'  ''  ^.^*^«^°^^'  ^^'^  ^  ^  preparation 
lor  tne  -L-orcl  s  feupper.     "It  is  well  known  that  in  several  Protestant  conn 

tries,  as  m  Sweden,  Denmark,  Holland,  and  in  several  parts  TSpverG^. 
w'irwarTthT  «-tif  y  f bolished.  In  Saxony,  Pomerania.Tedden- 
Durg,  It  was  all  the  more  firmly  held  on  to."  Klepper  Liturnk-  n  9A(\ 
sTaa"'''"4V''  ^^^.^-/^--  Q^-rterly,  July,  1896  %'ecTai;'^;p:  ^^57  S 
^egg.  Tttmann  in  his  notes  on  the  Augsburg  ConfessL^^ays  of 
^^Li^riAf  >.  *f^  ^Tt""^  *^^*  ^^''  ^"'^«*«  Absolution  must  be  re- 

afford'tWs  coSff'*  '.'  "^  v'-T  ^^t^t^ti^^'  but  because  it  is  salutary  to 
attord  this  consolation  to  individuals  when  they  hear  the  voice  in  the  name 

HeS'e  ^^^r^'T^^^'  forgiveness  of  sins,  as  it  is  well  stated  II  the  ApoW 
Hence,  although  the  entire  institution  of  Private  Confession  and  PrivS 
Absolution  is  only  human,  nevertheless  Melanchthon  rightly  says  that  7t  is 
impious  to  remove  Private  Absolution  from  the  Chufch"  (p"^  82)  See 
Ernesti,  Praelectiones,  edidit  Eedling,  p.  74.  ^^'        '' 

Tit  may  be^  a  question  whether  Poenitentia  in  this  Article  should  be 
translated  hj  Bepentanee  or  by  Penanee.  In  the  first  English  translation 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  (Taverner,  1536)  we  have  "Penance  orEe- 
pentance''  m  the  title  of  the  XII.  Article,  and  Penanee  in  the  ArtTcleTtsdf 
fn  the  Tnow'^"  *v*  Melanchthon  regarded  Poenitentia  as  a  sa  rament.- 
fL  Zrt^nl^^'  writing  Of  the  number  and  use  of  the  sacraments,  and  of 
Bapt  sm  the  iS'r?'  ^''  '^^!u  T^'"^"^'  *^^^«^«^^'  ^^'  «acram'ents  are 
te7tiaT''  Eron^  fl  P  "PP""'  Absolution,  which  is  saeramentum  poeni- 
T^lvfQ  ^^o"\«ie  German:  "So  now  true  sacraments  are  Baptism,  the 
Ps  T>Iced"S?t;;  i^^°i"*^«°:;'  I'Si^f^  Article  XIIL,  Be  usu  Sacralentor'^. 
ha^t^e  WsL?.Pr'"f'  '^^  ^''''  '  -^"PP"^  ^'^^^  Repentance,  it  is  e^ddent 
n  909\  "^"^f  IV^^  ^",^^^^f «°  recognizes  three  sacraments.  (See  Apolog.^ 
p.  zo^  )  But  the  Schmalkald  Articles  enumerate  two  sacraments  ' '  See- 
berg,  DogmengescncMe,  II.,  p.  331.  "The  three  sacraments  of  the  Augus- 
t^ana  and  the  Apology  are  Baptism,  Absolution,  the  Lord's  Supper."  Lo?fs 
Poc;w.5'.^c^rcMe  (1906)  p.  824.  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July.  1907 
S-  w««  Wff,;  Q  A  f^^*^^^  sacrament  was  res  sacra,  with  Melanchthon 
it  was  ntus.    See  Apology,  De  Numero  et  Usu  Sacramentorum. 


114  ANALYSIS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG   CONFESSION. 

(b)  Faith,  which  believes  the  remission  of  sins  for  the  sake 
of  Christ. 

4.     Good  works  as  the  effect  and  consequence  of  repentance. 
In  the  antithesis  are  condemned: 

1.  The  Anabaptists,  w^ho  deny  that  the  justified  can  lose  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

2.  Those  who  contend  that  some  persons  may  become  so  per- 
fect in  this  life  that  they  cannot  sin. 

3.  The  Novatians,  who  will  not  absolve  the  lapsed. 

4.  Those  who  do  not  teach  that  the  pardon  of  sins  comes 
through  faith,  but  that  it  is  merited  by  our  satisfactions. 

(Doubtless  referring  to  some  papal  teachers.  See  Carpzov, 
Isagoge,  p.  379,  and  Walch,  Introductio,  p.  302;  Baumgarten, 
Erleuterungen,  p.  57.) 

Art.  XIII.    Of  the  Use  of  the  Sacraments. 
The  use  of  the  sacraments  is: 

1.  External  and  ecclesiastical  as  marks  of  our  profession. 
But  more  than  that : 

2.  Internal:  Signs  and  testimonies  of  the  divine  will  to- 
wards us. 

3.  For  the  purpose  of  exciting  and  strengthening  the  faith 
of  those  who  use  them.  Means  of  grace.  Art.  V.,  Effective 
Signs. 

(a)  To  excite  faith  may  refer  to  the  baptism  of  children. 

(b)  To  strengthen  faith  can  refer  only  to  adults. 

4.  Rightly  used  when  received  with  faith.* 
(''Augustine  says,  the  faith  of  the  sacrament,  and  not  the 

sacrament,  justifies."     Apology.) 

Art.  XIV.     Of  Ecclesiastical  Orders. 

1.  Complementary  to  Article  V. 

2.  Emphasis  on  puhlicly:  Should  not  publicly  teach.  (Any 
private  Christian  may  teach  his  own  household,  or  administer 
the  sacraments  in  case  of  urgent  need.) 

3.  Vocation   {rite  vocatus)  is  the  essential  thing. 

4.  Vocation  is  mediated  by  the  local  Church  or  by  the  repre- 
sentative Church.  Implies  examination  in  regard  to  doctrine 
(1  Tim.  3),  Christian  character  (2  Tim.  2: 15),  and  motive. 

*  There  is  no  antithesis  to  this  Article,  either  German  or  Latin,  as  the 
Confession  was  read  and  delivered,  nor  to  the  German  Textus  Beceptus. 
Tsehackert,  pp.  61,  92,  93. 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE    AUGSBUKG    CONFESSION.  Ho 

(Ordination   is  of  apostolic  usage,   bnt   not  of  divine  com- 
mand.*) 

Art.  XA^.     Of  Ecclesiastical  Rites. 

1.  This  Article  does  not  contradict  Article  VII. 

2.  Rites  must  be  retained  in  the  Church: 

(a)  If  they  are  without  sin. 

(b)  If  they  promote  peace. 

3.  Rites  are  necessary : 

(a)  When  well  chosen  they  promote  piety  and  assist  in  de- 
votion. 

(b)  They  aid  in  exercising  Church  discipline. 

4.  Rule  for  selecting  and  retaining  Rites  in  the  Church : 

(a)  They  must  be  such  as  will  not  burden  pious  consciences. 

(b)  They  must  be  such  as  will  promote  piety  and  good  order. 

5.  Christians  must  be  taught  that  rites  and  ceremonies  are 
not  an  essential  part  of  religion  : 

(a)  That  they  do  not  reconcile  God. 

(b)  That  they  do  not  merit  grace. 

("The  chief  service  of  God  is  to  teach  the  Gospel."    Apology.) 

Art.  XVI.     Of  Civil  Affairs. 

1.  The  ci\dl  order  is  of  divine  appointment. 

2.  Christians  are  subjects  of  the  civil  order. 

3.  They  owe  obedience  to  the  civil  order. 

4.  They  may  enjoy  the  benefits  of  the  civil  order  and  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  citizens,  each  according  to  his  calling. 

5.  Obedience  has  its  limitation.     It  is  confined: 

(a)  To  lawful  ordinances. 

(b)  To  things  that  do  not  command  to  sin. 
5.     The  Article  condemns: 

(a)  The  Anabaptists,  who  opposed  the  civil  order. 

(b)  Those  who  placed  Christian  perfection  in  the  desertion 
of  the  civil  order. 

("Christian  perfection  consists  not  in  the  contempt  of  civil 
ordinances,  but  in  the  dispositions  of  the  heart,  in  great  fear  of 
God,  in  great  faith. "    Apology.) 

Art.  XVII.     Of  Christ's  Return  to  Judgment. 
In  its  thesis  this  Article  affirms : 
1.     The  return  of  Christ: 

*  For  more  than  three  centuries  after  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  de- 
livered, some  Lutheran  churches  did  not  practice  Ordination. 


116  ANALYSIS   OF   THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

(a)  At  the  last  day.    "End  of  the  world":  Latin. 

(b)  To  judge. 

2.  The  resurrection  of  all  the  dead, 

3.  The  bestowment  of  eternal  life  upon  the  pious. 

4.  The  condemnation  of  the  devil  and  of  wicked  men  to 
eternal  punishment. 

In  its  antithesis  the  article  condemns: 

1.  The  Anabaptists,  who  teach  that  the  punishment  of  the 
wicked  will  have  an  end. 

2.  Chiliasts,  who  scatter  Jewish  opinions  about  the  reign  of 
Christ  in  the  world  before  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 

(John  Denck  and  Louis  Hetzer  are  supposed  to  be  meant. 
Walch,  Introductio,  p.  313.) 

Art.  XVIII.     Op  Free-will.* 

1.  Civil  righteousness  is  distinguished  from  spiritual  right- 
eousness. 

(a)  The  former  has  as  its  object  the  things  of  this  life.  In 
the  Apology : '  "  Carnal  or  human  righteousness,  righteousness 
of  works." 

(b)  The  latter  has  for  its  object  God,  his  righteousness,  spir- 
itual blessings. 

2.  Free-will  (the  natural  man)  has  of  itself  some  power  to 
work  civil  righteousness. 

3.  Only  by  the  grace,  assistance  and  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  can  man  work  spiritual  righteousness,  that  is,  become 
acceptable  to  God — "heartily  fear  God,  or  believe,  or  cast  innate 
evil  desire  from  the  heart."    (German  text).t 

(a)  Absolute  passivity  neither  expressed  nor  implied. 

(b)  Some  activity  on  the  part  of  man  clearly  implied.  "Faith 
is  not  only  knowledge  in  the  intellect,  but  also  confidence  in  the 
will,  that  is,  it  is  to  will  and  to  accept  that  which  is  offered  in 
the  promise,  namely,  reconciliation  and  remission  of  sins." 
Apology. 

4.  Appeal  to  Augustine.  He  is  not  the  author  of  the  book 
quoted.     Authorship  in  doubt. 

5.  Nothing  new  in  this  teaching.  Has  been  constantly  taught 
by  the  Church. 

(The  antithesis  first  appears  in  the  Latin  editio  princeps.     It 

*  By  Free-will  (Liberum  ArMtrium)  in  the  Lutheran  theology  is  meant 
the  will  (voluntas)  conjoined  with  the  intellect.  Loci  Communes,  C.  R. 
XXI.,  653.     Ernesti,  Praelectiones  (1878),  p.  86. 

t  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  April,  1907,  pp.  203  et  seqq. 


ANALYSIS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  117 

is  wanting  in  all  the  Codices.    "This  paragraph  was  not  in  the 
original  as  delivered.")* 

Art.  XIX.     Of  the  Cause  of  Sin. 

1.  God  creates  and  preserves  nature.    But : 

2.  God  is  not  the  author  or  cause  of  sin. 

3.  The  depraved  will  of  the  wicked  is  the  cause  of  sin.  "The 
perverted  will  Avorks  sin  in  all  the  wicked  and  in  the  despisers 
of  God"   (German). 

4.  When  God  does  not  help,  the  will  of  the  wicked  turns 
away  from  God.     John  8 :  44. 

Art.  XX.    Of  Good  Works. 

1.  Supplementary  to  Articles  IV.  and  VI. 

2.  Refutation  of  the  accusations  that  the  subscribers  forbid 
good  works. 

3.  In  their  writings  they  admonish  to  the  performance  of 
good  works. 

4.  Their  opponents  mostly  preach  of  puerile  performances. 

5.  Their  opponents  teach  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  and 
works. 

6.  Our  works  do  not  reconcile  us  to  God. 

7.  Grace  and  justification  are  acquired  only  through  faith 
for  the  sake  of  Christ. 

8.  The  doctrine  of  faith  is  the  most  important  doctrine  in 
the  Church. 

9.  The  conscience  is  not  tranquilized  by  works,  but  only  by 
faith. 

10.  Faith  is  the  confidence  which  comforts  and  reassures 
frightened  souls. 

11.  The  doctrine  of  faith  does  not  forbid  good  works. 

Art.  XXI.     Of  the  Worship  of  the  Saints. 

1.  The  saints  are  to  be  remembered. 

2.  They  are  to  be  imitated  as  examples  in  doing  good. 

3.  The  Scriptures  do  not  teach  that  .the  saints  are  to  be  wor- 
shiped and  invoked  for  assistance. 

4.  Christ  the  only  Reconciler  and  Mediator  between  God  and 
man.     (German  text.) 

5.  The  highest  form  of  worship  according  to  the  Scriptures 
is  to  seek  and  to  invoke  Christ  in  every  case  of  need.     (German 

*  Tschackert,  ut  supra,  pp.  101-103. 


118  ANALYSIS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

text,  which  in  this  article  is  the  original,  and  differs  much  from 
the  Latin  translation). 

The  Conclusion  to  Part  I. 

1.  Affirms  agreement  of  the  Confession : 

(a)  With  the  Scriptures, 

(b)  With  the  Universal  Church. 

(c)  With  the  Roman  Church. 

2.  Reproaches  the  opponents  with  unkindness  in  charging 
the  Confessors  with  heresy. 

3.  "The  total  difference  (tota  dissentio)  has  reference  to 
some  few  abuses."  ("Is  this  true?  Dofes  a  Lutheran  differ 
from  the  Romanists  only  on  the  subject  of  ecclesiastical  rites? 
Certainly  not.  And  for  this  reason  learned  men  have  been  greatly 
exercised  over  this  passage.")  * 

Neither  is  this  true :  ' '  The  dift'erence  and  quarrel  are  chiefly 
about  some  traditions  and  abuses."  German  text.  The  Refor- 
mation was  preeminently  a  revolt  against  the  doctrinal  teaching 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

(The  words  tota  and  paucis  did  not  appear  in  the  second  form 
of  the  editio  princeps,  nor  in  later  printed  editions.)  f 

4.  In  great  part  the  ancient  rites  are  carefully  observed. 

5.  It  is  a  calumny  to  say  that  all  ceremonies  have  been  abol- 
ished by  the  Confessors. 

,  2.     Analysis  of  Part  II. 

The  Prologue. 

1.  Connects  Part  I.  with  Part  II. 

2.  "Only  some  few  abuses  have  been  omitted."  (Which  is 
only  a  part  of  the  truth.) 

3.  The  doctrine  is  in  accord  with  the  Scriptures  or  the  com-- 
mon  Christian  Church. 

4.  The  Emperor  is  importuned: 

(a)  To  give  gracious  audience  to  the  Confessors. 

(b)  Not  to  hear  those  who  scatter  calumnies  among  the 
people. 

5.  Ceremonies  properly  rendered  conserve  and  promote  rev- 
erence and  piety  among  the  people. 

*  Ernesti,  Praelectiones  (1878),  p.  97. 

t  Tschackert,  ut  supra,  p.  61 ;  Kolde,  Historische  Einleitung  in  die  Symh. 
Biicher,  p.  XXII.,  note  3. 


ANALYSIS    OF   THE   AUGSBURG   CONFESSION.  119 

I.    Of  Both  Species. 

1.  In  the  Lord's  Supper  both  species  are  given  to  the  laity. 

2.  This  custom  sanctioned: 

(a)  By  the  Scriptures.     Matt.  26:27;  1  Cor.  11:26-28. 

(b)  By  the  early  Church  teachers. 

(c)  By  the  Canons  of  the  early  Church. 

3.  Communion  under  one  species  is  an  innovation.  Contrary 
to  the  divine  command. 

4.  The  Procession  is  omitted.  Because : 

(a)  It  does  not  agree  with  the  institution  of  Christ. 

(b)  Is  a  division  of  the  sacrament. 

II.     Of  the  Marriage  of  Priests. 

1.  To  avoid  scandal  priests  are  allowed  to  marry. 

2.  The  marriage  of  such  is  justified  by  the  Scriptures :  1  Cor. 
7:2,  9 ;  Matt.  19  :  12 ;  Gen.  1 :  28. 

3.  Vows  of  celibacy  cannot  take  away  the  commandment  of 
God. 

4.  The  marriage  of  priests  allowed  in  the  ancient  Church. 

5.  An  innovation  in  Germany.     "Four  hundred  years  ago." 

6.  God  instituted  marriage  as  a  remedy  for  human  infirmity. 
("Is  this  true?  since  God  instituted  marriage  already  before  the 
Fall.  The  language  here  must  be  understood  of  the  institution  of 
marriage  which  was  repeated  after  the  Fall.")  * 

7.  Human  laws  cannot  abolish  or  change  the  divine  com- 
mandment. (German  text,  which  is  about  twice  the  length  of 
the  Latin  text.) 

III.     Of  the  I\Iass. 

1.  The  accusation  that  the  Mass  had  been  abolished  in  the 
churches  of  the  Confessors  is  repelled. 

2.  The  Mass  is  retained  and  celebrated  with  reverence. 

3.  Almost  all  the  usual  ceremonies  are  retained. f  Quod  vero 
.  non  ad  vivum  resecandum.     Ernesti. 

4.  The  mode  of  celebrating  the  Mass:  Communicants  were 
privately  examined  as  to  fitness.! 

*  Ernesti,  Praelectiones,  ut  supra,  p.  102. 

t  For  the  more  correct  apprehension  of  the > case,  see  Luther's  Formula 
Mi^sae  (1523),  and  his  Deutsche  Messe  (1526),  and  the  many  Kirchen- 
ordnungen  that  had  been  already  introduced. 

t  Explicat  modum  eelebrandae  missae,  mempe  ut  non  modo  sacerdos 
lianem  et  vinum  sumat,  sed  omnia  populus,  qui  adsit,  si  qui  sunt  idonei, 
h.  e.  qui  antea  explorati  sunt,  vel  privatim  in  aedibus  saeerdotis,  vel  in 
sella  confessionaria.  Ernesti,  ut  supra,  p.  103.  Many  of  the  earlier  Luth- 
eran Kirchenordnungen  order  the  priest  to  commune  first. 


120  ANALYSIS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

'    5.     Private  Masses  have  been  abolished.   Because : 

(a)  They  have  been  regarded  as  a  work  to  satisfy  for  daily 
sins. 

(b)  They  are  contrary  to  the  ancient  custom  of  the  Church. 
6.     They  are  celebrated  on  holidays  and  at  other  times,  if  any 

wish  to  use  the  sacrament. 

IV.     Of  Confession. 

1.  The  practice  and  doctrine  of  the  Lutherans  in  regard  to 
Confession : 

(a)  It  is  not  abolished. 

(b)  As  a  rule  the  sacrament  is  administered  only  to  those 
who  have  been  examined  and  absolved. 

(c)  It  is  to  be  highly  regarded,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  voice 
of  God. 

(d)  Faith  is  required,  which  believes  that  absolution  is  a 
voice  from  heaven.  This  belief  in  Christ  obtains  the  remission  of 
sins. 

2.  Enumeration  of  sins  not  necessary.  Art.  XI.  Ps.  19 :  31 ; 
Jeremiah,  17 :  9. 

3.  The  ancients  did  not  regard  enumeration  of  sins  as  neces- 
sary. 

4.  Confession  is  of  human  authority.  "Confession  is  not 
commanded  by  the  Scriptures,  but  was  instituted  by  the 
Churches."     German  text. 

5.  Confession  is  retained  on  account  of  Absolution,  which  is 
its  chief  part. 

V.    Of  the  Distinction  of  INIeats. 

1.  The  common  opinion  is  that  human  traditions  are  works 
which  serve  to  merit  grace. 

The  evil  effects  of  such  an  opinion : 

(a)  The  doctrine  of  grace  and  justification  is  thereby  ob- 
scured. 

(b)  Traditions  obscure  the  commandments  of  God. 

(c)  They  bring  great  danger  to  consciences. 

2.  The  allegation  that  the  Lutherans  hinder  all  good  dis- 
cipline is  rejected. 

3.  Very  many  ceremonies  and  traditions  are  observed,  as 
reading  in  the  Mass  and  singing. 

4.  Such  ceremonies  do  not  justify  before  God. 

5.  Such  freedom  in  external  ceremonies  was  maintained  by 
the  ancient  Fathers. 


ANALYSIS    OF    THE   AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  121 

VI.     Of  the  Vows  of  IMonks. 

1.  It  is  lawful  to  contract  marriage,  since  it  is  in  accord 
with  the  commandment  of  God. 

2.  Cloister  vows  are  not  obligatory.  They  lack  the  qualities 
that  make  vows  obligatory. 

3.  They  obscure  the  righteousness  of  faith. 

4.  They  deceive  the  people  by  holding  up  false  views  of 
sanctity. 

VII.    Of  Ecclesiastical  Po^ver. 

1.  The  power  of  the  Keys,  or  the  power  of  the  Bishops,  is 
the  power  or  command  to  preach  the  Gospel,  to  forgive  and  to 
retain  sins,  and  to  administer  the  sacraments. 

2.  The  spiritual  and  the  civil  powers  must  not  be  confounded 
with  each  other. 

(a)  The  spiritual  power  has  the  command  to  preach  the 
Gospel  and  to  administer  the  sacraments. 

(b)  The  civil  power  administers  the  external  affairs  of  men. 
(e)     The  Bishops  have  no  divine  right  to  administer  civil 

affairs  or  to  carry  the  sword.     They  have  such  power  only  by 
human  right. 

3.  The  Lutherans  teach  that  the  Bishops  have  no  power  to 
teach  anything  contrary  to  the  Gospel. 

4.  It  is  contrary  to  the  divine  command  to  burden  the  Church 
with  the  bondage  of  the  law,  as  though  we  ought  to  merit  grace 
by  Levitical  observances. 

5.  Bishops  or  Pastors  may  make  ordinances  that  will  pro- 
mote good  order  in  the  Church,  but  not  for  the  purpose  of  merit- 
ing grace. 

6.  St.  Peter  forbids  the  Bishops  to  oppress  the  Church. 

7.  Bishops  are  besought  not  to  force  consciences  to  sin. 

8.  It  is  not  proposed  to  deprive  the  Bishops  of  their  power. 
They  are  besought  to  allow  the  Gospel  to  be  purely  preached. 

( The  German  text  of  this  and  of  the  preceding  article  is  very 
much  longer  than  the  Latin.) 

The  Epilogue. 

1.  Only  the  chief  articles,  about  which  there  has  been  contro- 
versy, have  been  treated. 

2.  Many  abuses,  causing  endless  contentions,  have  been  passed 
over  in  the  interest  of  gentleness. 

3.  Nothing  has  been  said  in  unkindness. 


122  ANALYSIS    OF   THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION. 

4.  Nothing  has  been  received  in  doctrine  or  in  ceremonies  con- 
trary to  the  Scriptures  or  to  the  Catholic  Church. 

5.  In  obedience  to  the  Imperial  Edict,  these  Articles  are  de- 
livered ' '  as  a  declaration  of  our  Confession  and  of  our  doctrine. ' ' 

6.  If  further  information  be  desired,  it  will  be  presented  ac- 
cording to  the  Scriptures. 

Then  follow  the  signatures,  according  to  the  German  critical 
text,  thus: 

John,  Duke  of  Saxony,  Elector,  etc. 

George,  Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  etc. 

Ernest,  Duke  of  Brunswick  and  Lunenburg,  etc. 

Philip.  Landgrave  of  Hesse. 

John  Frederick,  Duke  of  Saxony. 

Francis,  Duke  of  Brunswick  and  Lunenburg. 

Wolfgang,  Prince  of  Anhalt. 

Albert,  Count  and  Lord  of  Mansfeld;  and  the  Cities  Niirn- 
berg  and  Reutlingen. 

The  same  names,  with  the  omission  of  Albert,  in  the  same  order, 
are  attached  to  the  Latin  critical  text.  The  German  textus  re- 
ceptus  appears  without  the  names  of  John  Frederick,  Francis 
and  Albert.  In  the  editio  princeps,  both  Latin  and  German,  the 
name  of  Albert  does  not  appear.* 

While  the  Diet  was  yet  in  session  at  Augsburg,  the  cities 
Weissenburg,  Heilbronn,  Kempten  and  Windsheim  declared 
their  approval  of  the  Confession. 

*  Tschackert,  Die  unverdnderte  Augsburgische  Konfession,  pp    230,  231 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THE   CATHOLIC   CONFUTATION. 

Charles  V.  was  by  nature  and  by  practice  pious,  as  the  word 
pious  was  understood  in  his  day;  that  is,  he  was  ardently  de- 
voted to  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  and  instant  in  the  observances  of  religion.  He  also  felt 
that  by  virtue  of  his  position  as  Emperor  he  was  the  protector 
of  the  Church.  But  he  was  of  a  mild  and  pacific  disposition, 
and  possessed  a  fair  amount  of  independence.  These  estimable 
qualities  of  his  nature  were  shown  in  Italy,  when,  in  opposition 
to  the  will  of  the  Pope,  he  decided  to  call  a  diet  in  order  to  settle 
the  disputes  about  religion  in  Germany ;  were  shown  in  his  Proc- 
lamation that  the  opinions  and  views  of  both  parties  should  be 
considered  with  patience  and  charity ;  and  were  shown  none  the 
less  when  in  Germany  he  refused  to  determine  his  attitude  to- 
wards the  Protestants  by  the  clamors  and  counsels  of  the  Cath- 
olic Princes  and  theologians. 

Hence  it  was  in  the  spirit  of  moderation,  and  not  in  the  spirit 
of  violence,  that  he  undertook  to  act  the  difficult  part  of  mediator 
between  the  Church  of  Rome  and  the  dissidents  in  Germany, 
w^ho  had  introduced  new  doctrines  and  ceremonies,  had  refused 
to  obey  the  Edict  of  Worms,  and  had  sent  to  the  throne  a  pro- 
test against  the  decision  of  the  Catholic  majority  at  Speyer  in 
1529.  Moreover,  these  Lutherans,  as  they  were  now  generally 
called,  had  avowed  their  loyalty  to  his  person  and  to  his  rule. 
They  had  also  just  complied  with  his  command  to  deliver,  in 
writing,  a  confession  of  their  faith  and  a  statement  of  their 
grievances.  This  document  was  also  a  state-paper.  The  Em- 
peror was  bound  by  the  promises  of  his  Proclamation  and  by 
the  nature  of  his  office  as  ruler  to  give  it  official  attention.  Be- 
sides, this  document  had  called  into  existence  a  distinct  party  of 
religionists,  who  were  conscious  of  standing,  and  who  had  con- 
vinced others  that  they  were  standing  in  at  least  some  sort  of 
opposition  to  the  Church  of  Rome.  For  these  and  other  reasons, 
the  Protestant  Confession  could  not  be  ignored.  Then,  too,  the 
Emperor  had  declared,  when  the  Confession  was  delivered,  that 
he  would  take  into  consideration  the  matters  of  which  it  treated. 

(123) 


124  THE  CATHOLIC  CONFUTATION. 

He  was  now  face  to  face  with  a  great  obligation  and  with  a  great 
occasion.  The  Confession  made  by  the  Protestants  could  not  be 
ignored. 

1.     Preparations  for  the  Confutation. 

Sunday,  June  26th,  the  day  after  the  reading  and  delivery  of 
the  Confession,  the  Emperor  summoned  the  Catholic  Estates  to 
a  council.  Here,  according  to'  a  report  rendered  by  Melanchthon, 
three  methods  of  procedure  were  proposed :  ' '  The  first  was  the 
most  ferocious,  namely,  that  the  Emperor  should  simply  force 
all  the  Princes  and  the  people  to  obey  the  Edict  of  Worms.  The 
second  was  more  moderate,  namely,  that  our  Confession  should 
be  committed  to  good  and  learned  men  who  are  allied  with  neither 
party,  that  they  may  pass  judgment  upon  it.  This  was  pro- 
posed by  King  Ferdinand.  A  third  now  seems  to  have  prevailed, 
namely,  that  a  confutation  of  our  Confession  be  read  to  us. ' '  * 

According  to  others,  two  distinctly  opposite  propositions  were 
made.  The  one  was  that  the  Emperor  should  take  up  arms  and 
enforce  the  old  Edict.  The  Archbishop  of  Salzburg  said:  "Either 
we  must  oust  them  or  they  will  oust  us.  Which  of  the  two  be- 
comes us?"  Another  violent  member  of  the  Council,  alluding 
to  the  fact  that  the  Confession  had  been  written  with  black  ink, 
was  heard  to  say:  "Were  I  Emperor  I  would  add  to  it  red 
rubrics,"  to  whom  another  remarked:  "Sir,  only  look  out  lest 
the  red  spurt  into  your  own  face."  But  by  no  means  were 
all  disposed  to  such  violence.  The  Archbishop  of  ^Nlayence 
pointed  out  the  danger  that  would  come  from  an  open  breach, 
should  an  attack  be  made  by  the  Turks. f 

Milder  counsels  prevailed.  Finally  it  was  decided  that  a 
Reply  should  be  made  to  the  Confession  of  the  Protestants.  But 
this  Reply  dare  not  be  of  the  nature  of  a  counter-confession, 
neither  dare  it  stop  with  a  mere  criticism  of  the  Protestant  Con- 
fession. It  must  take  into  the  account  certain  conditions  exist- 
ing in  the  Church.  Hence,  in  a  written  opinion  handed  to  the 
Emperor  the  next  day,  it  was  recommended  that  the  Protestant 
Confession  should  be  examined  by  a  committee  of  learned  and 
unobnoxious  men,  who  should  approve  all  that  agreed  with  the 
teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  refute  all  that  stood  in 
opposition  to  that  teaching.  For  the  correction  of  existing  abuses 
the  Emperor  should  provide  the  necessary  ways  and  means. 

Charles  laid  this  opinion  before   Cardinal   Campeggius,   the 

*  C.  E.  II.,  .p.  175. 

t  See  Von  Ranke,  lit  siqira,  p.  179. 


THE    CATHOLIC   CONFUTATIOX.  125 

Papal  Legate,  who  heartily  approved  it,  and  at  once  elaborated 
a  plan  of  procedure :  The  statements  of  the  Protestants  were  to 
be  investigated  as  to  their  correctness,  and  everything  that  had 
been  masked  "should  be  unmasked  with  modesty,  wisdom,  court- 
esy, and  with  all  Christian  charity."  Everything  in  the  Con- 
fession that  accorded  with  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  should 
be  approved,  and  everything  found  in  it  that  deviated  from  the 
true  religion  should  be  completely  annihilated,  in  order  thus  to 
show  that  all  such  teaching  had  been  already  condemned.  Should 
the  Protestant  Princes  complain  that  their  theologians  had  been 
misjudged,  the  objections  thus  raised  should  be  disproved  by 
appeal  to  the  Confession.  The  heretical  propositions  found  in 
the  Confession  should  be  met  by  positive  and  well-grounded 
statements  from  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church.  And  as 
the  Protestant  Confession  had  been  composed  both  in  the  Latin 
and  in  the  German  language,  so  should  the  reply  be  composed 
in  the  same  languages.  Then,  after  it  had  been  submitted  to  the 
Emperor,  and  had  been  examined  by  the  Princes,  it  should  be 
read  before  the  Diet.  Finally  Charles  was  reminded  of  the  con- 
duet  of  Charles  the  Great,  who  first  overthrew  the  Saxons,  and 
then  brought  them  into  the  Church ;  that  is,  Charles  V.  should, 
in  case  of  need,  subdue  the  Protestants  by  force  of  arms,  and  thus 
save  them  to  the  Church. 

Not  all  of  these  suggestions  were  approved  by  the  Emperor, 
but  it  was  decided  to  appoint  a  committee  to  examine  and  to 
refute  the  Protestant  Confession,  and  Cardinal  Campeggius  was 
placed  in  charge  of  the  entire  procedure,  even  including  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  committee,*  consisting  of  twenty  or  more 
theologians,  who  had  either  been  ordered  to  Augsburg  by  the 
Emperor,  or  had  come  thither  in  the  retinues  of  the  Catholic 
Princes.f    In  this  committee  were  men  of  high  position,  ample 

*  See  Die  Konfutation  des  Augshurgischen  BeTcenntnisses.  Ihre  erste 
Gestalt  tind  ihre  Geschichte.   Von  Johannes  Ficker.    P.  xx. 

t  Spalatin  reports  twenty.  Luther's  Werle,  Jena,  V.,  p.  40.  Brentz 
reports  twenty-four.  C.  R.  II.,  p.  180.  Others  report  twenty-two,  and 
others  twenty-six.  It  is  probable  that  twenty  is  the  original  number,  and 
that  others  were  added,  or  were  substituted  for  those  who  were  excluded 
from  the  meetings  and  conferences  of  the  committee  because  of  their  love 
of  mildness  and  peace.  Eck  gives  the  number  twenty-six.  The  following 
is  regarded  as  the  official  list:  John  Eck,  Prochancellor  of  the  University 
of  Ingolstadt;  John  Fabri,  Provost  in  Ofen  and  Coadjutor  Bishop  at 
Vienna ;  Augustine  Marius.  Suif ragan  of  Wiirzburg ;  Conrad  Wimpina, 
Professor  of  Theology  at  Frankfort;  John  Cochlaeus,  Court  Preacher  to. 
George  of  Saxony;  Paul  Haug,  Provincial  of  the  Order  of  Preachers;  An- 
drew Stoss,  Pro^•incial  of  the  Carthusians;  Conrad  Collin,  Prior  of  the 
Dominicans  at  Cologne ;   Conrad  Thoman,  Presbyter  at  Eatisbon ;   Barthol- 


126  THE  CATHOLIC  CONFUTATION. 

learning  and  commanding  influence.  For  years  some  of  them  had 
been  engaged  in  violent  controversy  with  the  Wittenberg  Re- 
formers, and  particularly  with  Luther.  This  is  especially  true 
of  Eck,  Fabri  and  Cochlaeus,  who  had  paraded  hundreds  and 
hundreds  of  errors  against  the  Wittenberg  teaching.  And  yet 
these  men  were  charged  to  do  and  to  write  nothing  that  savored 
of  rashness  or  violence,  for  it  was  the  policy  of  the  Emperor  and 
of  the  Catholic  Princes  to  act  with  moderation,  and  simply  to 
refute  the  errors  of  the  Protestant  Confession. 

But  already  before  their  official  appointment  on  the  com- 
mittee, even  as  early  as  June  26th  and  27th,  some  of  them  had 
been  getting  ready  to  make  reply  to  the  Protestant  Confession. 
Indeed,  the  minds  of  some  of  the  theologians  were  made  up 
against  the  Confession.  They  regarded  it  as  a  work  of  dissimula- 
tion, of  deception,  of  concealment,  and  as  in  contradiction  with 
the  teaching  of  the  theologians  of  the  Princes.  In  a  word,  the 
Confession  was  prejudged,  and  the  theologians  of  the  Princes 
were  to  be  assailed  by  those  who  for  years  had  been  their  most 
violent  and  bitter  antagonists. 

Such  is  the  psychology  of  the  situation,  and  the  knowledge  of 
this  fact,  that  is,  of  the  mental  attitude  of  the  chief  confutators,  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  a  clear  and  correct  understanding  of  the 
Confutation  as  it  appears  in  its  first  form,  for  in  tliis  form  the 
Confutation  can  scarcely  be  called  a  Reply  to  the  Confession,  but 
a  prolix  and  violent  polemic  against  the  preachers  of  the  Princes, 
and  especially  against  Luther,  who  is  belabored  with  epithets 
and  imputations. 

2.  The  Composition  of  the  Confutation. 
The  committee  came  to  its  appointed  work  with  fulness  of 
preparation  and  with  an  abundance  of  materials.  Several  of 
its  members  were  experienced  controversialists,  and  had  the  con- 
fidence of  their  party.  They  had  in  their  hands  several  copies  of 
the  Latin  Confession  which  the  Emperor  had  caused  to  be  made 
for  their  use.    Some  of  them  had  brought  with  them  bundles  of 

omew  Arnold!  of  Using;  John  Mensing,  Court  Preacher  to  Joachim  of 
Brandenburg;  .John  Dietenberger,  Canon  of  Mayence;  John  Burkhard,  Vicar 
of  the  Order  of  Preachers ;  Peter  Speiser,  Vicar  to  the  Bishop  of  Constance ; 
Arnold  of  Wesel,  Canon  of  Cologne;  Medard,  Court  Preacher  to  King  Fer- 
dinand; Augustine  Tottelin,  Theologian  of  Bremen;  Wolfgang  Eedorfer, 
Provost  of  Stendal;  Hieronimus  Montinus,  Vicar  to  the  Bishop  of  Passau; 
Matthias  Kretz,  Preacher  at  Augsburg.  See  Salig,  Historia,  I.,  229  et  seqq. 
Laemraer,  ut  supra,  pp.  145,  146.  C.  R.  XXVII.,  3,  4.  J.  J.  Miiller,  His- 
torie,  655,  656.     Spalatin,  Annales,  pp.  140,  141. 


THE  CATHOLIC  CONFUTATION'.  127 

extracts  from  the  writings  of  Luther,  and  books  which  they  and 
others  had  written  against  the  Lutheran  heresy.  For  use  at  the 
Diet  of  Speyer,  in  the  year  1524,  a  number  of  theologians  had 
been  commanded  by  their  Princes  to  make  extracts  from  the 
writings  of  Luther.  Cochlaeus  had  extracted  ninety-one  errors 
from  three  of  Luther^s  sermons,  and  from  thirty-six  of  his 
postils  he  had  collected  five  hundred.  There  were  also  Eck's  four 
hundred  and  four  Articles,  of  which  we  have  already  spoken. 
Fabri  had  made  collections  of  heretical  passages  from  Luther's 
writings.  Especially  had  he  sought  to  show  that  during  the  last 
ten  years  Luther's  writings  had  abounded  in  contradictions: 
''One  book  contradicts  another;  one  sentence,  one  statement, 
contradicts  another;  yea,  one  letter  contradicts  another — in  a 
word,  Luther,  instead  of  being  a  man,  has  become  a  mad,  irra- 
tional beast. ' '  * 

This  collection  of  contradictions,  to  which  was  prefixed  a  Pre- 
face, Fabri  was  encouraged  by  Ferdinand  to  deliver  to  the  Em- 
peror. The  object  in  view  was  to  inflame  the  mind  of  Charles 
against  the  Lutherans,  and  to  turn  him  from  his  accustomed 
course  of  moderation.  And  surely,  if  it  had  been  in  the  power 
of  calumnies  and  detractions  to  efi:'ect  such  a  result,  it  would 
have  been  effected  by  this  Preface.  For  here  Luther  is  "called 
that  apostate,  the  most  pestiferous  pest  of  the  Church  of  God." 
"Luther  is  as  far  from  the  Martyrs  as  the  Holy  Spirit  is  from 
Satan,  as  a  lie  is  from  the  truth."  "From  being  a  pious  monk 
he  has  become  a  most  dissolute  apostate:  from  being  a  chaste 
priest  he  has  become  a  most  foul  whoremonger;  from  being  a 
man  of  modesty,  he  has  become  a  most  loquacious  buffoon ;  from 
being  orthodox,  he  has  become  a  heretic ;  from  being  a  Christian, 
he  has  become  an  apostate;  in  a  word,  instead  of  being  a  man, 
he  has  become  a  brute  and  an  irrational  animal."  "A  heretic, 
that  is,  one  who  against  his  o-s^ti  conscience  has  introduced  the 
most  abominable  and  unheard-of  heresies,  and  has  taught  the 
people  the  most  pernicious  doctrines."  "Luther  tries  to  pluck 
up  by  the  roots  the  authority  of  the  Church,  the  decrees  of  the 
councils  and  the  decisions  of  the  Holy  Fathers  and  of  the  Popes. ' ' 
"Ought  we,  therefore,  hesitate  to  reject  and  to  condemn  the 
capricious  writings  of  Luther  and  the  heretics  of  our  country, 
since  he  says  one  thing  when  he  stands,  another  thing  when  he 
sits,  one  thing  in  the  morning,  another  in  the  evening,  yea,  one 
thing  when  sober,  another  when  drunk  ? ' ' 

*  Ficker,  ut  supra,  p.  xxiv. 


128  THE    CATHOLIC    CONFUTATION. 

The  Preface  closes  by  saying  that  this  evil  must  not  be  met  by 
violence  and  by  arms,  but  by  wise  counsel,  and  by  that  benignity 
for  which  the  Austrian  Princes  have  been  distinguished,  for  in. 
this  way  the  Princes  who,  in  their  blindness  and  ignorance,  have 
favored  Luther's  doctrines,  may  be  induced  to  drop  him,  and 
to  force  their  people  to  come  back  to  the  light  of  the  pristine  and 
true  Gospel. 

With  such  an  abundance  of  materials  in  hand,  the  work  of 
composition  moved  on  apace.  At  first  the  work  was  parted  out 
among  the  individual  members  of  the  committee.  But  it  was 
soon  discovered  that  this  method  of  procedure  would  fail  to 
bring  the  desired  unity.  Thereupon  it  was  resolved  to  place  the 
composition  in  the  hands  of  one  man.  For  this  work  John  Eck 
was  unanimously  chosen  by  the  theologians  present.  He  himself 
says:  "I  prepared  the  reply  to  the  Saxon  Confession."  *  Twice 
a  day  the  committee  met  and  revised  his  work ;  and  Campeggius, 
who  was  confined  to  his  quarters  with  the  gout,  kept  his  eye  on 
the  work  and  hastened  it  to  a  conclusion.  On  July  9tli  the  Reply 
was  finished  in  draft.  The  re-writing  began  the  next  day,  and 
the  committee  promised  that  in  three  days  it  should  be  ready  for 
delivery. 

But  meanwhile  the  Emperor,  through  the  Count  Palatine  and 
others,  inquired  of  the  Protestant  Princes  whether  they  had  addi- 
tional articles  to  present,  or  would  rest  their  cause  with  those 
which  had  been  already  proposed.  The  Princes  consulted  their 
theologians,  and  replied  the  next  day  that  they  had  presented 
the  most  important  articles  of  doctrine,  and  had  condemned  the 
abuses  which  conflicted  with  that  doctrine ;  that  it  was  not  neces- 
sary nor  possible  to  enumerate  all  the  abuses  which  existed.  They 
pray  the  Emperor  to  make  haste,  as  they  had  been  on  expense 
for  a  long  time,  but,  God  willing,  there  shall  be  no  failure  on 
their  side.f 

This  answer,  though  somewhat  ambiguous,  pleased  the  Em- 
peror, and  the  Catholic  Reply  to  the  Protestant  Confession^  was 
finished  on  the  12th.  The  next  day,  July  13th,  it  was  delivered 
to  the  Emperor,  together  with  a  pile  of  books  and  pamphlets, 
for  which  he  had  not  called,  but  which  were  intended  to  support 
the  Reply  and  to  influence  his  decision. t    In  all,  there  were  351 

*  Ficker,  ut  supra,  p.  XXXII.,  note  2.     C.  E.,  XXVII.,  24,  note. 

t  C.  E.  II.,  184,  185. 

t  The  title  of  the  Eeply  was  as  follows :  Catholloa  et  quasi  extemporanea 
responsio  super  nonnullis  articulis  Caesare^e  Majestati  hisee  proximis  diebus 
in    Dieta   Iraperiali   Augustensi    per    lUustrissimos    Electorem    Saxoniae    et 


THE  CATHOLIC  CONFUTATIOX.  129 

folia.  The  Emperor  received  them  graciously,  and  when  the 
theologians  departed  he  extended  to  each  one  three  fingers  of  his 
right  hand.  But  the  resiTlt  was  entirely  different  from  what 
they  had  expected.  The  prolixity  of  the  Reply,  the  accusations 
and  calumnies  which  it  contained,  so  displeased  the  Emperor  that 
he  remanded  it  back  to  the  committee  with  instructions  to  re- 
duce it  in  size,  to  make  it  more  temperate,  and  to  confine  it  to 
the  matters  that  were  contained  in  the  Protestant  Confession. 
A  revision  was  speedily  made  by  Cochlaeus,  but  this  was  not  de- 
livered to  the  Emperor.  Then  a  second  revision  was  made.  This 
also  failed  to  please  the  Emperor.  Consequently  he  ordered  an- 
other revision  and  commanded  the  omission  of  all  remaining 
accusations  of  the  Protestants.  This  further  revised  form  was 
presented  July  30th*  or  31st,  but,  quite  contrary  to  the  expec- 
tation of  the  committee,  it  also  was  rejected.  Another  revision 
was  ordered,  with  instructions  to  omit  everything  that  could 
offend  the  Lutherans,  to  translate  the  Latin  into  German,  and 
to  present  it  within  two  days.  This,  the  fifth  form,  was  accepted 
by  the  Emperor  and  the  Catholic  Princes,  and  was  ordered  to 
be  read  publicly  in  the  German  language  as  the  Emperor's  reply 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession. t  Accordingly,  August  3d,  in  the 
afternoon,  it  was  read  in  German  by  Alexander  Schweiss,  one 
of  the  imperial  secretaries,  in  the  room  in  which  just  forty  days 

alios  quosdam  Principes  et  duas  civitates  oblatis.  Folia  106.  The  other 
documents  handed  to  the  Emperor  at  the  same  time  bore  the  following 
titles : 

Antilogiarum,  hoc  est  contradictionum  Martini  Lutheri  Babilonia,  ex 
eius  Apostatae  libris  per  D.  Joannem  Fabri  excerpta.  folia  36. 

Hereses  et  errores  ex  diversis  Martini  libris  in  unum  collecti.         folia  61. 

Hereses  Sacris  Conciliis  antea  damnatae  per  Lutheranos  iterum  ab  in- 
feris  reductae.  folia  14. 

Hereses  et  errores  Martini  Lutheri  per  Leonem  ante  decennium  con- 
demnati  folia  4. 

Hereses  et  errores  Martini  Lutheri  ante  septennium  per  Universitatem 
Parisiensem  condemnati  folia  12. 

Condemnatio  facultatis  theologiae  Lovaniensis  folia  2. 

Epitome  aliquot  heresiarum  et  errorum  Martini  Lutheri  folia  12. 

Monstra  sectarum  ex  Luthero  et  Lutheranis  enata  folia  12. 

Lutheran!  Evangelii  abominabiles  nimiumque  pernitiosi  damnatissimi. 
fructus  folia  12. 

Christenliche  darzue  in  ganz  kurzer  zeit  gemacht  und  gegebne  antwurt 
nber  etlieh  artiekel,  so  der  Romischer  Kayserlichen  Majestat  diss  nechst 
verschinnen  tags  auf  gemaines  reichs  versamlung  zu  Augsburg  durch  dy 
Durchleuchtigsten  Durchleuchtigen  Hochgebornen  Churfursten  von  Saxen 
und  etlieh  andere  fursten  auch  zwayen  Steeten  fur  gebracht  und  uberantwurt 
worden  sein         folia  80.   Ficker,  XLIX. 

*  Laemmer  makes  the  date  July  30th ;  ut  supra,  p.  156.  C.  R.  XXVTI., 
31,  names  July  31st. 

t  Laemmer,  ut  supra,  pp.  158-160.  Pastor,  Die  Eirchl,  Eeunionsbestr., 
p.  42.     C.  E.  XXAn:i.,  21-23.   Francke.  Libri  Symholici,  XXX-XXXII. 


130  THE  CATHOLIC  CONFUTATION. 

before,  less  one,  to  the  very  hour,  the  Protestants  had  read  their 
Confession.  The  German  is,  therefore,  the  official  form  of  the 
Confutation,  though  the  Latin  has  been  far  more  generally  used. 

After  the  reading,  which  lasted  two  hours,  the  Emperor  signi- 
fied through  the  Elector  Frederick  that  he  considered  the  Con- 
futation Christian,  and  entirely  incapable  of  being  refuted.  It 
Avas  therefore  his  jMajesty's  most  gracious  will  that  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  and  his  associates  in  religion  should  subscribe  to  it  as 
the  Catholic  and  sacrosanct  faith,  and  should  return  to  the  bosom 
of  the  Church,  which  he  confidently  hoped  they  would  do.  Should 
they  do  this,  there  was  nothing  that  they  might  not  expect  at  his 
hands.  Should  they  refuse,  then  he  must  act  as  it  became  the 
guardian  and  protector  of  the  Church.* 

To  this  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  his  co-religionists  responded 
that,  so  far  as  they  could  learn  from  the  hasty  reading  of  the 
Confutation,  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  refute  their  Confes- 
sion by  the  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  and  by  quotations  from 
the  Fathers  and  the  Councils.  In  a  matter  pertaining  to  the 
salvation  of  their  souls  they  ought  to  have  a  copy  of  the  Con- 
futation, that  they  might  examine  it  and  see  whether  they  had 
been  refuted  or  not:  and  this,  they  remind  the  Emperor,  is  in 
harmony  with  the  declaration  of  his  Proclamation  that  the  views 
of  both  parties  should  be  heard  and  considered.  The  Emperor 
replied  that  he  would  take  the  matter  into  consideration.  After 
two  days  he  replied  that  they  might  have  a  copy  on  the  conditions 
that  they  would  not  publish  it  nor  allow  it  to  be  copied,  and 
would  not  make  reply  to  it,  since  now  both  parties  had  spoken 
and  written. t  As  the  Protestants  could  not  accept  it  under  these 
conditions,  it  was  not  delivered  to  them.  Here  the  matter  stood 
for  the  time  being. 

3.     The  Contents  of  the  Confutation. 

Of  the  first  form  of  the  Confutation,  only  recently  brought  tO' 
light,  and  published  in  1891  by  Ficker,  it  may  be  said  that  in 
the  long  preface  it  discusses  the  following  points : 

1.  There  are  some  articles  in  the  Protestant  Confession  that 
agree  with  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  The  Princes  should  be 
exhorted  to  persevere  in  this  doctrine,  and  on  no  account  to  de- 
part from  it. 

*  Chytraeus,  Eistoria  Augsb.  Conf.,  p.  213.  Salig,  Uistorie,  I.,  pp.  274-6.. 
Sleidan,  De  Statu  Beligionis,  p.  107b.     Epilogue  to  the  Confutation. 

t  C.  E.  II.,  2.53,  254.  Chytraeus,  ut  supra,  215,  216.  Laemmer,  i(t  snpra.. 
pp.  160,  161. 


THE    CATHOLIC    CO^M•■l'TATIO^".  131 

2.  The  Confession  contains  some  articles  in  regard  to  which 
the  preachers  for  a  decade  have  been  preaching  to  the  people  the 
very  opposite,  and  thereby  have  been  creating-  donbt  among  the 
people.    Snch  books  should  be  destroyed. 

3.  The  Confession  contains  numerous  articles  that  agree 
neither  with  the  Scriptures  nor  with  the  teaching  of  the  Church. 
The  Emperor  should  advise  the  Princes  to  depart  from  such 
errors  and  heresies  and  to  disallow  schism. 

4.  Besides  these  manifestly  erroneous  articles,  Luther  is  the 
prime  author  of  many  heresies  which  have  been  examined  in  the 
councils  and  condemned.  The  Princes  and  their  preachers  should 
desist  from  these  heresies. 

5.  Besides  the  innumerable  errors  of  which  Luther  is  the 
author,  wicked  and  intolerable  sects  have  sprung  up,  such  as  the 
Capernians,  who  oppose  the  Eucharist,  and  the  Anabaptists,  who 
oppose  the  baptism  of  children.  The  Emperor  should  proceed  to 
exterminate  these  abominable  heresies.  The  Princes  should  not 
tolerate  these  sects  in  their  lands,  nor  give  place  to  new  ones. 

The  Confutation  next  proceeds  to  discuss  the  Confession,  ar- 
ticle by  article.  Sometimes  the  article  is  quoted  in  full,  and  some- 
times only  in  part.  Quite  generally  the  thesis  and  the  antithesis 
of  the  doctrinal  articles  are  approved.  But  in  every  case  the 
authors  proceed  to  arraign  the  theologians  of  the  Princes  and  to 
condemn  their  teaching.  In  some  instances  the  discussions  are 
elaborate,  and  consist,  on  the  one  hand,  of  condemnations  of  the 
Lutheran  teaching  in  general  and  in  particular,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  of  exhibitions  of  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  on 
the  article  in  question.  Here  there  is  no  lack  of  learning.  The 
Canon  Law,  the  decrees  of  councils,  the  dicta  of  the  Fathers,  are 
handled  with  great  familiarity.  But  the  style  is  pedantic  and 
the  tone  is  dictatorial,  and  instead  of  argument  we  find  abuse 
and  vilification.  In  a  word,  the  Confutation  in  this  its  first  form 
can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  a  reply  to  the  Confession,  but  much 
rather  as  an  assailment  of  Luther  and  the  Lutherans.  But  it  is 
valuable  in  that  it  furnishes  a  consensus  of  Roman  Catholic  teach- 
ing at  that  time,  and  exhibits  the  mind  and  heart  of  Dr.  John 
Eck,  its  chief  author. 

When  the  Confutation  passes  to  the  second  part  of  the  Con- 
fession it  finds  nothing  to  approve  in  regard  to  the  abuses  that 
have  been  corrected,  but  it  defends  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of 
the  Catholic  Church  with  vehemence,  and  with  passionate  decla- 
mation against  Luther  and  the  Lutherans — a  piece  of  private 


132  THE  CATHOLIC  COXFUTATIOX. 

polemic,  and  not  a  dignified  reply  to  an  official  document.  Had 
it  been  read  before  the  Diet  as  the  Emperor's  reply  to  the  Prot- 
estant Confession,  it  wonld  have  exasperated  the  minds  of  the 
Protestant  Princes  and  aggravated  the  situation.  Happily,  it 
was  rejected  by  the  Emperor  and  was  allowed  to  be  buried  in 
oblivion  for  more  than  three  hundred  and  fifty  years. 

Turning  now  to  the  Confutation  as  it  was  read,  August  3d,  we 
find  an  entirely  different  document.  Not  only  does  this  official 
Confutation  differ  from  the  first  in  length,  but  in  tone  and  in 
contents.  The  treatment  is  almost  entirely  objective.  There  is 
but  little  controversy  with  Luther  and  the  preachers.  Quota- 
tions from  the  Fathers  and  from  the  official  teaching  of 
the  Church  are  comparatively  rare.  In  form  it  is  digni- 
fied and  respectful;  in  argument  it  is  poor  and  weak.  It 
may  be  called  a  criticism,  an  arraignment,  of  the  Confession. 
It  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  confutation  of  the  Confession.  It 
is  doubtful  if  it  satisfied  its  composers.  It  is  certain  that  it  made 
no  formidable  impression  on  the  Protestants.  Cochlaeus  says : 
"While  it  (the  Confutation)  was  being  read  in  German  by 
Alexander,  one  of  the  imperial  secretaries,  at  a  public  session  of 
the  Emperor  and  the  Princes,  many  of  the  Lutherans  imperti- 
nently laughed;  others  took  exception  to  passages  of  Scripture 
quoted  in  the  document,  and  afterwards  censured. ' '  *  Brentz 
wrote  to  Isenmann,  August  4th :  ' '  The  entire  document  smacks 
of  Cochlaeus,  Fabri  and  Eck.  It  is  absolutely  stupid,  so  that  I 
am  ashamed  of  the  Koman  name,  because  they  do  not  seek  out 
men  who  can  reply  to  us  heretics  in  a  prudent  and  decorous 
way. ' '  t  Melanchthon  to  Luther,  August  6th  :  ' '  Since  the  Con- 
futation is  so  utterly  puerile,  there  was  great  rejoicing  after  the 
reading. '  '$  And  to  Myconius,  August  8th :  ' '  Believe  me,  when 
the  Confutation  was  read  many  good  men  felt  greatly  encour- 
aged, since  they  have  learned  that  our  opponents  have  absolutely 
no  knowledge  of  Christ."  § 

Forty-three  years  after  the  reading,  the  Confutation  appeared 
in  print  for  the  first  time,  under  the  title:  Caroli  Ccssaris  et 
Catholicorum  Principnm  ad  ohlatam  a  P  rote  stantibus  Confessio- 
nem.  7'esponsio,l\  that  is.  Reply  of  the  Emperor  Charles  and  of 

*  Com.  de  Actis  et  Scriptis  Liitheri,  p.  209.   See  Pastor,  ut  supra,  p.  43. 
t  C.  E.  II.,  245. 
$C.  R.  II.,  253. 
§  C.  E.  II.,  260. 

1 1  In  Harmonia  Confessionis  Augustanae.  By  Andreas  Fabricins  Leo- 
dius.     Colonae,  1573. 


THE  CATHOLIC  CONFUTATION.  133 

the  Catholic  Princes  to  the  Confession  presented  by  the  Protest- 
ants. The  word  "Confutation"  is  not  a  part  of  the  official  title. 
Indeed,  that  word  seems  to  have  been  first  used  in  this  connec- 
tion by  the  Lutherans,  though  Charles,  in  giving  orders  for  the 
publication  of  the  Reply  *— orders  which  were  not  executed— em- 
ployed the  word  ' '  conf  utavimus. ' '  f 

In  length  it  corresponds  very  well  to  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
In  print  it  covers  about  thirty  pages.  It  consists  of  Prologue- 
Epilogue,  Part  I.  and  Part  II.  But  as  it  is  quite  too  long  to  ap- 
pear in  full  in  these  pages,  we  give  the  summary  of  it  made  by 
Cochlaeus  and  published  at  Dresden  in  the  year  1531.$ 

4.  Summary  of  the  Imperial  Reply  to  the  Confession  of  the 
five  Princes  and  six  cities  at  the  Diet  lately  held  in 
Angshurg.'^ 

The  first  Article,  Of  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  wholly  approved  in 
all  points. 

The  second,  Of  Original  Sin,  is  approved  in  part,  namely,  in 
that  original  sin  is  truly  sin,  etc. ;  in  part  not,  namely,  in  that 
they  say  that  original  sin  is  to  be  without  the  fear  of  God,  and 
without  trust  in  God,  and  it  is  concupiscence,  which  remains  in 
children  after  baptism. 

The  third,  Of  the  Two  Natures  of  Christ,  that  he  is  true  God 
and  Man,  is  approved  in  all  parts. 

The  fourth.  Of  the  Merit  of  Good  Works,  is  approved  in  that 
we  by  our  own  powers  can  merit  nothing.  And  therefore  the 
Pelagians  are  justly  condemned  as  heretics.  But  it  is  rejected 
in  that  they  do  not  confess  with  us  the  merit  of  good  works  which 
are  done  by  means  of  divine  grace. 

The  fifth,  Of  the  Word  and  Sacraments,  is  approved,  in  that 
by  these,  as  by  an  instrument,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  given.  But  it 
is  rejected  in  so  far  as  they  speak  of  faith  alone,  and  say  nothing 
about  love  and  hope. 

The  sixth.  Of  Good  Works,  is  approved,  in  that  faith  ought  to 
produce  good  works,  and  is  rejected  in  that  they  say  that  faith 
alone  justifies,  in  regard  to  which  they  do  not  correctly  under- 
stand the  words  of  Christ,  Luke  17,  of  Paul  and  Ambrose  on 
Romans  3,  4,  etc. 

*  Laemmer,  ut  supra,  pp.  161,  162. 
t  Ficker.  lit  supra,  p.  153. 
%  C.  E.  XXVII.,  70. 

§  C.  E.  XXVII.,  240-244.  Also  Walch,  Opera  Lutheri.  XVI.,  1274-1279. 
In  St.  Lonis  Edition  of  Luther's  Works,  XVI.,  1069-1073. 


134  THE    CATHOLU'    COXFUTATION. 

The  seventh,  Of  the  Church,  is  rejected,  where  they  mean  to 
have  it  understood  that  only  the  congregation  of  the  saints  is 
the  Church,  for  in  the  Church  good  and  bad  are  congregated. 
But  it  is  approved  in  that  the  Church  abides  forever. 

The  eighth,  Of  Ministers  of  the  Church,  that  even  the  wicked 
may  preach  and  may  administer  the  sacraments,  is  approved  in 
all  parts. 

The  ninth,  Of  Baptism,  is  also  wholly  approved,  that  children 
should  be  baptized,  and  that  the  Anabaptists  should  not  be  ap- 
proved. 

r  The  tenth.  Of  the  Venerable  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  is  also 
j  approved,  yet  with  this  addition,  that  it  should  be  steadfastly 
1  believed  that  the  whole  Christ  is  under  each  form  of  the  sacra- 
jment,  and  that  the  substance  of  the  bread  is  truly  changed  into 
(the  body  of  Christ. 

The  eleventh.  Of  Confession,  is  also  approved,  with  the  requi- 
sition of  two  things.  First,  that  confession  should  be  made  at 
Easter  time,  according  to  the  chapter:  "Every  one  of  both 
sexes."  Secondly,  that  each  one  should  be  careful  to  confess  all 
sins  of  which  he  knows  himself  to  be  guilty,  and  should  not  pur- 
posely conceal  any. 

The  twelfth.  Of  Penance,  is  approved,  in  that  sin  may  be 
forgiven  the  sinner,  if  he  repents,  so  often  as  he  sins.  But  it  is 
rejected,  first,  in  that  it  presents  not  more  than  two  parts  of 
penance ;  secondly,  in  that  they  say  that  faith  is  a  part  of  pen- 
ance; thirdly,  in  that  it  does  not  confess  satisfaction,  the  third 
part  of  penance, 
r  The  thirteenth,  Of  the  Use  of  the  Sacraments,  is  wholly  ap- 
I  proved,  namely,  that  the  sacraments  are  not  only  signs  among 
men,  but  also  witnesses  of  the  divine  will  towards  us. 

The  fourteenth,  Of  the  Clerical  Estate,  is  approved,  namely, 

that  no  one  should  preach  or  administer  the  sacraments,  unless  he 

has  been  properh^  called,  with  this  addition,  that  such  call  should 

be  made  according  to  the  ancient  order  of  the  Christian  Church, 

not  when  the  choice  is  made  by  the  civil  authority  or  by  the 

people,  but  Avhen  the  Bishop,  or  he  whose  duty  it  is  according  to 

law  and  custom,  calls  or  institutes. 

r    The  fifteenth,  Of  Ceremonies  in  the  Churches,  is  also  approved, 

in  that  they  should  be  observed,  in  so  far  as  they  can  be  observed 

J  without  sin.    But  it  is  rejected  in  that  they  say  that  such  cere- 

j  monies  are  contrary  to  the  Gospel,  if  they  are  performed  to  rec- 

1  oncile  God,  or  for  sin. 


THE   CATHOLIC    COM' ITATION.  135 

The  sixteenth,  Of  Civil  Govennnent,  is  wholly  approved,  with 
the  condemnation  of  the  Anabaptists,  who  wish  to  tolerate  no 
civil  government  among  Christians. 

The  seventeenth,  Of  the  Final  Judgment,  is  also  wholly  ap- 
proved, with  the  rejection  of  the  Anabaptists  and  others  who 
wonld  concede  redemption  and  salvation  finally  to  the  devils 
and  the  ungodly. 

The  eighteenth,  Of  Free-will,  is  also  approved,  namely,  that 
we  have  free-will  in  human  affairs:  but  in  divine  affairs  we  can 
do  nothing  without  the  grace  of  God. 

The  nineteenth,  Of  the  Cause  of  Sin,  is  also  approved,  namely, 
that  not  God,  but  the  will  of  man  is  the  cause  of  sin. 

The  twentieth.  Of  Good  Works,  is  rejected.  For  they  will  not 
confess  that  by  good  works  one  may  acquire  the  remission  of  sin. 

The  twenty-first,  Of  Honoring  and  Worshiping  the  Saints,  is 
also  rejected,  because  they  confess  the  error  of  the  Vigilants,  the 
Waldensians,  the  Picards  and  others,  and  will  not  invoke  the 
saints.  In  this  they  act  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  of  both  Testa- 
ments, and  to  all  teachers,  etc. 

End  of  the  Articles. 


The  Second  Part  op  the  Confession  op  the  Princes.     Of 

Abuses. 
In  this  part  no  article  is  approved,  for  what  they  call  an  abuse 
is  not  an  abuse. 

Of  Both  Forms  of  the  Sacrament. 
1  From  the  Scriptures  and  the  Holy  Fathers  it  is  proved  that 
under  one  form,  namely,  that  of  the  bread,  it  has  always  been 
the  custom  to  receive  this  sacrament  after  the  Mass,  and  much 
more  is  it  an  abuse  to  administer  both  forms  to  the  laity,  con- 
trary to  the  order  of  the  Church  and  without  the  command  of 
God. 

Of  the  Marriage  of  Priests  and  Monks. 
Here  also  it  is  proved  from  the  Scriptures,  from  the  ancient 
Fathers  and  from  many  councils  that  not  the  purity  of  the 
priests,  but  much  rather  the  unchaste  marriage  of  the  monks  and 
pastors  is  an  intolerable  abuse,  for,  more  than  eleven  hundred 
years  ago,  this  thing  was  condemned  in  the  heresy  of  Jo^^nian. 
and  all  their  arguments  were  answered  and  refuted  on  the  sure 
foundation  of  the  Scripture. 


136  THE    CATHOLIC    CONFUTATION. 

Of  the  Mass. 
r  First:  That  they,  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  universal 
(Church,  hold  the  Mass  in  German,  is  rejected.  Secondly :  That 
jthey  regard  it  as  an  abuse  that  he  who  serves  at  the  altar  should 
jlive  from  the  altar,  because  the  Scripture  permits  this.  Luke 
1 10  and  1  Cor.  9,  etc.     Thirdly:  That  they,  from  wantonness, 

contrary  to  the  honor  of  God  and  the  last  wills  of  the  founders, 
i  have  abolished  so  many  of  the  endowed  masses.    Fourthly :  That 

they  renounce  the  sacrifice  of  the  Mass,  which  is  (as  shown  by 
I  Augustine)  an  old  heresy  of  the  Arians,  and  the  sacrifice  of  the 
jMass  is  proved  by  many  passages  of  the  Scriptures,  and  from 

the  most  ancient  teachers  and  councils.  Therefore  the  Mass 
,  is  by  no  means  to  be  abolished. 

Of  Confession. 
First :  It  is  regarded  as  an  abuse  in  Luther 's  sect  that  so  few 
people  confess.  Secondly:  That  they  say  nothing  about  peni- 
tence and  satisfaction  for  sin.  Thirdly:  That  they  misunder- 
stand and  misinterpret  the  words  of  Chrysostom  in  regard  to 
oral  confession.  Fourthly :  That  they  do  not  confess  all  secret 
sins  of  which  they  are  conscious,  which  is  an  old  heresy  of  the 
Montanists,  who  are  ashamed  to  confess  all  sins. 

Of  the  Distinction  of  Meats. 

First :  It  is  rejected  that  they,  contrary  to  Christ,  Luke  10, 
and  to  Paul,  1  Thess.  2,  etc.,  despise  a  statute  and  a  rule  of  the 
Church.  Secondly:  That  they  regard  such  a  statute  as  un- 
profitable. Thirdly :  That  they  say  that  it  is  contrary  to  faith, 
contrary  to  the  Gospel,  contrary  to  the  commandments  of  God. 
Fourthly :  That  they  regard  it  as  impossible.  Fifthly :  That 
by  such  institutions  they  misunderstand  Christ  and  Paul. 
Sixthly :  That  they  would  have  all  such  things  free  and  unfor- 
bidden. 

Of  Monastic  Vows. 

First.  It  is  rejected  that  they,  contrary  to  so  many  passages 
of  both  Testaments,  would  abolish  such  vows.  Secondly:  That 
they  regard  the  monastic  life  as  improper,  contrary  to  so  many 
thousands  of  holy  people,  who  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity 
to  our  day  have  lived  and  been  happy  in  such  a  life.  Thirdly : 
That  they,  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments, would  have  such  vows  to  be  voluntary.     Fourthly :    That 


THE  CATHOLIC  CONFUTATION.  137 

they  say  that  such  vows  are  impossible,  contrary  to  so  much 
Scripture  and  to  the  promise  of  Christ.  Fifthly :  That  they  say 
that  monks  and  nuns  should  not  be  divorced.  Sixthly:  That 
they  say  that  such  a  life  is  contrary  to  the  Gospel,  whereas  it  is 
in  harmony  with  the  Gospel,  and  it  forsakes  father  and  mother, 
house  and  home,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  according  to  his  counsel, 
Matt.  19,  Luke  9  and  14,  etc. 

Of  Ecclesiastical  Power. 
First :  It  is  rejected  that  they  wnsh  to  abolish  the  jurisdiction, 
the  authority,  the  franchises,  the  privileges  of  the  clergy,  which 
have  come  to  them  from  emperors  and  kings.  Secondly:  That 
they,  contrary  to  the  Scriptures,  do  not  concede  the  authority 
of  the  clergy,  and  suppress  their  jurisdiction.  Thirdly:  That, 
contrary  to  the  Scriptures  and  to  the  imperial  laws,  they  despise 
the  liberty  of  those  who  have  taken  orders.  Fourthly:  That 
they  wish  to  subject  the  ministry  to  civil  tribunals,  which  is 
contrary  to  the  Scriptures  and  to  imperial  laws.  Fifthly :  That, 
contrary  to  the  command  of  the  Church,  they  allege  a  wanton 
liberty,  which  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  observe.  Sixthly: 
That  they,  on  account  of  abuses,  wish  to  fling  away  also  good 
ordinances  of  the  clergy.  Finally  the  Imperial  Majesty  wishes 
that  they  return  to  Christian  unity  and  help  to  correct  all  abuses. 
Amen,* 

^  Besides  this  Epitome  of  the  Confutation  made  by  Cochlaeus,  we  have 
one  made  by  Camerarius  and  some  other  Lutherans  while  the  Confutation 
was  being  read,  and  another,  made  at  the  same  time,  by  someone  who  was 
in  the  retinue  of  the  Margrave,  of  Brandenburg.  The  former  of  these  is 
found  in  Volume  IX.,  pp.  421-423  of  the  Wittenberg  edition  of  Luther's 
Works.  The  latter  is  found  in  Chytraeus'  History,  pp.  119-125.  Both  have 
been  reproduced  in  Corpus  Heformatorum,  Vol.  XXVIT.,  227  et  seqq. 
These  furnished  the  basis  of  Melanehthon 's  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession as  it  appeared  in  its  first  form. 


CHAPTER  X. 

EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. 

The  Augsburg  Confession  was  written,  signed  and  delivered 
Avith  the  avowed  purpose  of  repelling  hostile  attacks  and  of 
expressing  agreement  in  doctrine  with  the  Roman  Church. 
Neither  the  theologians  nor  the  Princes  had  any  intention  of 
leaving  the  Catholic  Church,  but  much  rather  was  it  their  in- 
tention, by  repudiating  heresy  and  by  affirming  the  Catholic 
doctrine,  to  vindicate  their  right  to  remain  in  that  Church.  This 
attitude  of  mind  accounts  for  the  mild  and  conciliatory  char- 
acter of  the  Confession,  which  declares  that  it  contains  no  doc- 
trine that  differs  from  the  Roman  Church  in  so  far  as  it  is 
known  from  writers.  Already  before  the  completion  and  sign- 
ing of  the  Confession  ]\Ielanchthon  had  been  invited  several 
times  to  interviews  with  Alphonso  Valdesius,  one  of  the  imperial 
secretaries,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  affairs  of  the  Luth- 
erans, and  of  ascertaining  what  the  Lutherans  desired  and  of 
inquiring  how  assistance  could  be  rendered.  Melanchthon  de- 
clared that  the  matter  was  not  so  .tedious  and  clumsy  as  it  had 
been  reported  to  the  Emperor,  and  that  the  dissidence  related 
chiefly  to  both  forms  of  the  sacrament,  to  the  marriage  of  priests 
and  monks,  and  to  the  Mass,  as  the  Lutherans  did  not  approve 
private  ]\Iasses.*  We  also  learn  at  the  same  time  that  the  Em- 
peror desired  to  have  the  matter  settled  quietly,  and  not  to  have 
an  open  discussion,  inasmuch  as  an  open  discussion  would  only 
promote  anger  and  discord.f  On  the  24th  of  June  Brentz 
wrote  to  Isenmann  that  the  Confession  had  been  drawn  up  ' '  very 
politely  and  moderately.  In  it  the  Princes  seek  to  settle  the 
controversy  amicably,  and  to  restore  peace. ' '  % 

Thus  we  see  that  already  before  the  reading  of  the  Confession 
the  atmosphere  was  charged  with  a  desire  for  peace,,  though  the 
Protestant  Princes  "stood  fast  in  the  confession  of  the  Gospel." 
The  day  after  the  reading  and  delivery  of  the  Confession,  Mel- 
apchthon.  in  a  letter  to  Luther,  expressed  the  opinion  that  the 

*  C.  E.  IT.,  122.     Whether  Melanchthon  or  the  Catholics  took  the  initia- 
tive in  these  interviews  remains  a  question. 
t  C.  R.  II.,  123. 
tC.  R.  TL,  124-5. 

(138) 


EFFORTS    AT    KECONCILIATIOX.  139 

future  discussion  would  be  limited  to  both  species  in  the  Euchar- 
ist, to  marriage  and  to  private  Masses.*  A  day  later  he  thinks 
that  the  chief  controversy  Avill  be  in  regard  to  private  iMasses, 
and  inquires  of  Luther:  "How  much  can  we  concede  to  the 
enemy?"  t  Jnly  4th,  Osiander  wrote  to  friends  that  the  Em- 
peror's confessor  had  approved  the  Lutherans,  and  bade  them 
be  of  good  courage,  and  adds:  "In  a  word,  there  is  no  one 
who  does  not  desire  that  this  matter  be  settled  on  just  and 
Christian  conditions,  except  certain  petty  German  Bishops,  petty 
tyrants  and  pseudo-theologasters,  who,  beset  by  the  furies,  really 
desire  nothing  but  blood.  If  they  do  not  repent,  may  God  re- 
ward them  according  to  their  works. ' '  |  On  the  sixth  of  July, 
jMelanchthon,  under  instruction  from  the  Protestant  Princes, 
wrote  a  letter  to  Cardinal  Campeggius,  in  which,  after  praising 
the  Cardinal's  moderation,  he  urges  him  to  take  the  lead  in 
restoring  harmony.  He  declares  that  the  Protestant  Princes 
very  much  desire  peace:  "for  they  see  that  if  any  disturbance 
should  arise  there  is  danger  that  there  may  be  greater  confusion 
in  regard  to  religion  and  the  Church.  Therefore  they  pray  that 
your  Most  Reverend  Lordship  shall  not  suffer  itself  to  be  de- 
flected from  this  supreme  moderation,  but  take  care  that  peace 
be  restored,  which  at  such  a  time  seems  to  be  profitable  for  the 
entire  realm,  especially  since  they  suffer  no  doctrines  to  be 
taught  which  differ  from  the  Scriptures  and  from  the  Church. 
In  turn  they  privately  offer  their  service  to  your  IMost  Reverend 
Lordship,  and  promise  publicly  that  in  so  far  as  it  can  be  done 
without  wounding  their  consciences,  they  mil  accept  such  con- 
ditions as  will  promote  peace  and  concord,  and  as  will  tend  to 
retain,  confirm  and  establish  the  ecclesiastical  order;  and  they 
declare  that  they  by  no  means  wish  the  ecclesiastical  order  and 
the  lawful  authority  of  the  Bishops  to  collapse. ' '  §  Immediately 
after  the  delivery  of  the  Confession  the  Emperor  had  written 
to  Rome  that  a  good  beginning  had  been  made  for  the  restora- 
tion of  peace,  and  in  later  letters  he  seems  to  have  expressed 
similar  hopes.     On  the  sixth  of  July  his  confessor  wrote  him : 

*  C.  E.  II.,  141. 

t  C.  R.  II..  146. 

±  C.  E.  II.,  163. 

§  C.  E.  IT.,  171.  See  also  Melanchthou  's  letter  to  Cardinal  Campeggius 
in  C.  E.  II.,  168  et  seqq.,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he  says:  "We 
hold  no  doctrine  different  from  the  Eoman  Church.  .  .  .  For  no  other 
reason  do  we  bear  much  odium  in  Germany  than  because  we  with  the 
greatest  constancy  defend  the  doctrines  of  the  Eoman  Church.  Such  fidelity 
to  Christ  and  to  the  Eoman  Church  we  will,  please  God.,  show  to  the  last 
breath." 


140  EFFORTS   AT    RECONCILIATION. 

' '  It  appears  that  God  is  working  wonders  through  your  Reverend 
Majesty,  and  after  the  beginning  of  the  healing  of  this  dis- 
order, it  is  evident  that  we  may  hope  that  the  end  will  be  much 
more  favorable  than  our  sins  deserve. ' '  *  And  the  personal 
relations  between  the  parties  were  most  friendly.  July  17th, 
King  Ferdinand  invited  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the  Landgrave 
of  Hesse,  the  Margrave  of  Brandenburg  and  others  of  their 
party  to  a  dance,  ' '  since  they  also  are  very  good  fellows. ' '  f 

When  the  Lutherans  had  declined  to  receive  a  copy  of  the 
Confutation  on  the  conditions  made  by  the  Emperor,  at  once 
the  Electors  of  IMayence  and  Brandenburg,  the  Dukes  of  Bruns- 
wick and  Saxon}^,  came  to  the  Elector  John  of  Saxony  and 
offered  themselves  as  mediators  between  the  Protestants  and  the 
Emperor;  whereupon  the  Elector  of  Saxony  exclaimed:  "It  is 
not  that  we  have  a  breach  with  the  Emperor.  He  summoned 
this  Diet  for  the  very  purpose  that  we  might  be  one  in  regard 
to  the  faith,  and  for  this  we  are  entirely  ready. ' '  %  And  at  the 
same  time  the  same  Catholic  Princes  presented  themselves  most 
humbly  before  the  Emperor  and  begged  to  be  appointed  med- 
iators between  the  parties.  The  Emperor  was  pleased  with  their 
proposition. 

Thus  we  see  that  on  both  sides  the  desire  for  peace  and  har- 
mony in  the  faith  was  strong,  and,  we  may  believe,  equally 
sincere  on  both  sides.  The  Protestants  could  not  brook  the  idea 
of  leaving  the  Catholic  Church,  nor  that  of  being  thrust  out  of 
it.  The  Catholics  knew  full  well  what  it  meant  to  the  Catholic 
Church  to  have  the  Protestant  Princes  and  their  peoples  sep- 
arated from  that  Church.  There  is  no  doubt  that  both  parties 
felt  the  awful  power  of  the  old  dogma  ''that  there  is  no  salva- 
tion out  of  the  Church."  Hence  the  strong  desire  and  the  many 
efforts  for  rapprochement. 

1.     The   Committee  of  Sixteen. 
In  compliance  with  the  request  of  the  Catholic  Princes  noted 
above,  a  committee  of  sixteen  persons  was  appointed  August 
6th.    It  consisted  of  the  Elector  of  Mayence,  the  Elector  Joachim 

*  Pastor,  Beunionsbestre'bungen,  p.  42. 

t  Ibid.,  p.  43.  Besides  theological  disputations  at  Augsburg,  we  read 
of  banquets,  where  Lutherans  and  Catholics  feasted  together,  of  jousts 
and  tournaments.  In  one  of  these,  King  Ferdinand  was  thrown  from  his 
horse  three  times  and  was  hurt.  Six  persons  were  killed  in  one  day.  C.  R. 
II.,  355.    Lindsay,  History  of  the  Beformation,  p.  371,  note. 

t  Pfaff,  GescMcJite,  I.,  p.  308.  Plitt,  Apologie  der  Augustana,  p.  45. 
The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  1900,  pp.  368  et  seqq.     C.  Pt.  II.,  254. 


EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION.  141 

of  Brandenburg,  who  was  made  spokesman,  Duke  Henry  of 
Brunswick,  Duke  George  of  Saxony,  the  Archbishop  of  Saltz- 
burg,  the  Bishop  of  Worms,  the  Bishop  of  Strassburg,  the 
Bishop  of  Augsburg,  Duke  Albert  of  Mecklenburg,  the  Abbot 
of  Weingarten,  Count  Martin  of  Ottingen,  George  Truchsess, 
and  the  delegates  respectively  of  Treves,  Cologne,  Baden  and 
the  Palatinate. 

The  Committee  held  a  meeting  in  the  forenoon  of  the  day  of 
its  appointment,  and  consumed  most  of  the  time  in  listening  to 
violent  disputes  between  its  own  members,  especially  between 
the  Bishop  of  Augsburg  and  the  Archbishop  of  Saltzburg.  The 
former  opened  the  session  with  an  address  in  which  he  admon- 
ished the  Committee  to  do  nothing  contrary  to  God's  Word,  to 
right  and  justice,  since  the  Lutherans  had  not  attempted  to  over- 
throw a  single  doctrine  of  the  Christian  faith.  Hence  every 
effort  should  be  made  to  restore  and  to  establish  the  former 
peace  and  concord  of  the  Church.  The  Archbishop  of  Saltzburg 
demanded  to  know  why  the  Bishop  of  Augsburg  had  so  suddenly 
changed  his  opinion,  since  he  had  recently  heard  him  speak  very 
differently.  The  Bishop  of  Augsburg  replied  that  he  had  done 
many  things  in  his  life-time  which  were  wrong,  but  the  time  and 
the  occasion  demand  a  change.  He  charged  the  Archbishop  with 
palliating  idolatrous  abuses  and  defending  impious  doctrines, 
and  prays  God  to  be  restrained  from  such  impiety.  Then 
Joachim  of  Brandenburg  turned  upon  the  Bishop  of  Augsburg 
and  denied  the  truthfulness  of  his  statement  that  the  Lutherans 
had  opposed  no  .article  of  faith,  affirming  that  the  Lutherans 
had  denied  and  rejected  the  Catholic  Church  and  the  worship 
of  the  saints.  Finally  the  Archbishop  of  Mayence,  disgusted 
with  such  altercations  and  disputes,  begged  that  they  should 
make  an  end  to  disputing,  and  turn  their  attention  to  the  aboli- 
tion of  abuses  and  to  the  restoration  of  peace  throughout  the 
Roman  Empire.* 

So  passed  the  morning  session.  The  afternoon  session  was 
even  worse  and  more  violent.  The  Catholic  Princes  heaped 
reproaches  upon  each  other  and  charged  each  other  with  lying, 
and  scarcely  abstained  from  blows.f  Consequently,  nothing  was 
done  that  day  to  promote  the  interests  of  peace. 

The  next  day,  August  7th,  leading  members  of  the  Committee 

*  See  Coelestin,  Historia,  III.,  25,  26.  Chytraeus,  Eistorie,  p.  215.  J.  J. 
Miiller,  pp.  706-709.  Schirrmacher,  p.  191.  Salig,  Vollstdndige  Histone, 
I.,  277. 

t  Ut  supra. 


142  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. 

held  an  interview  with  the  Protestant  Princes  and  demanded 
that  they  should  abandon  their  false  doctrine  and  return  to  the 
Church.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  asked  for  time  to  deliberate. 
Thereupon  the  violent  Elector  Joachim  of  Brandenburg  turned 
upon  him  and  declared  that  unless  he  should  abandon  the  teach- 
ing of  Luther,  the  Emperor  would  proceed  against  him  with 
arms  and  would  subjugate  him  and  take  away  his  rank,  his  pos- 
sessions, his  life,  and  would  bring  his  subjects,  with  their  wives 
and  children,  back  to  the  old  faith.* 

Coelestin  tells  us  that  this  harsh  and  violent  si^eech  frightened 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  almost  as  though  he  had  been  stunned  by 
a  thunderbolt,  and  that,  returning  home,  he  could  not  conceal 
his  alarm  from  his  theologians,  but  told  them  that  unless  he 
should  abjure  and  renounce  the  known  truth  of  the  Gospel  he 
would  be  attacked  by  force,  and  that  both  he  and  his  subjects 
would  be  brought  to  extreme  peril  and  distress. f 

In  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day  Chancellor  Briick  and  a 
special  committee  prepared  an  answer  to  the  demands  of  the 
Catholic  Princes.^  They  complain  that  their  cause  has  not  been 
properly  heard,  as  had  been  promised  in  the  Imperial  Proclama- 
tion of  the  Diet ;  that  a  copy  of  the  Confutation  had  not  been 
given  them.  They  declare  that  they  cannot  conscientiously  ap- 
prove the  propositions  made  by  the  Catholic  party,  and  they 
note  the  fact  that  the  Emperor  had  time  and  again  promised 
to  call  a  council  to  discuss  these  matters.  §  This  answer  was  read 
before  the  Catholic  Committee  by  Chancellor  Briick  on  the 
afternoon  of  the  ninth  of  August,  and  was  subscribed  by  eight 
Princes  and  six  cities,  Kempten,  Winsheim,  Heilbronn  and 
Weissenburg  having  now  accepted  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

On  the  eleventh  the  Catholic  Committee  made  reply  to  the 
Protestant  answer  through  the  Elector  Joachim  of  Branden- 
burg. We  have  not  the  full  text  of  this  reply,  but  only  so  much 
of  it  as  some  of  the  Protestants  took  down  volante  calamo  at  the 
time.     Its  substance  is  as  follows: 

First.  The  Protestants  complain  that  the  Emperor  has  not 
redeemed  the  promise  made  in  his  Proclamation,  that  the  views 
of  both  parties  should  be  heard  and  considered.    This  is  a  false 

*  Coelestin,  III.,  26.  J.  .T.  Miiller,  ut  supra,  pp.  714,  715.  Salig,  ut 
supra,  I.,  279. 

t  Coelestin,  III.,  26b. 

t  C.  R.  II.,  266. 

§  This  answer  of  the  Protestant  Princes  is  found  in  Latin  in  Chytraeus, 
pp.  221  et  seqq.;  in  J.  J.  Miiller,  pp.  716  et  seqq. ;  in  Walch,  XVL.  1632 
et  seqq. 


EFFORTS    AT    KECONCILIATIOX.  143 

accusation,  since  the  Emperor  has  more  than  fulfilled  his  promise, 
and  has  even  inquired  whether  the  Protestants  had  anything 
more  to  present. 

Secondly.  The  Confutation  was  not  given  them  for  good  and 
sufficient  reasons,  since  the  Imperial  Laws  forbid,  on  peril  of 
body  and  life,  to  dispute  and  to  wrangle  about  the  Articles  of 
Faith.  The  Imperial  Edicts  about  matters  of  the  faith  had  not 
been  observed  by  the  Protestants,  but  had  been  treated  with 
mockery  and  insult.  So  it  would  go  with  the  Confutation.  If 
the  Protestants  would  observe  the  conditions,  it  would  be  given 
to  them,  or  it  should  be  read  as  often  as  they  desired. 

Thirdly.  As  regards  conscience,  the  Protestants  appeal  to 
their  consciences  when  matters  of  conscience  are  not  involved, 
and  where  they  ought  to  have  consciences  they  have  none,  since 
their  preachers,  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  to  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  have  made  unchristian  laws  and  ordinances,  have 
deceived  the  common  people,  and  have  everywhere  tolerated  the 
sects,  as  the  Iconoclasts,  the  Sacramentarians,  the  Anabaptists 
and  others.  Their  consciences  should  teach  them  that  they  ought 
much  rather  foUow  the  Catholic  Church  than  its  seducers. 

Fourthly.  A  free  council  has  indeed  been  promised,  but  on 
account  of  wars  in  Germany  and  in  Italy  it  could  not  be  held. 
Should  a  council  be  held,  whether  sooner  or  later,  but  little  good 
can  be  expected,  for  the  Lutherans  have  accused  the  old  councils 
of  errors.  A  council  would  only  give  occasion  for  derision  and 
insult.  For  the  present  it  were  better  to  propose  means  and 
ways  for  concord.*  Two  days  later,  that  is,  August  13th,  the 
Protestant  Princes  make  a  very  long  reply  to  the  latest  reply 
of  the  Catholic  Committee.  At  first  it  was  delivered  viva  voce 
by  Dr.  Briick,  but  then,  on  account  of  its  very  great  importance 
as  involving  soul  and  honor  and  possessions,  it  was  committed 
to  writing  and  formally  read  to  the  Committee.f  We  can  give 
only  the  substance: 

1.  They  (the  Protestants)  cannot  deny  that  the  Emperor  had 
heard  their  Confession  as  was  promised  in  the  Proclamation. 
But  the  point  of  the  Proclamation  is  that  the  views  and  opinions 
of  both  parties  should  be  considered  in  love  and  kindness,  so 
that  what  is  not  right  on  both  sides  might  be  put  away.  This 
had  not  yet  been  done,  for  it  had  only  been  insisted  that  the 

*  Original  in  Walch,  XVI.,  pp.  1635-1637;  St.  Louis  Edition  of  Luther's 
Schriften,  XVI.,  13.52-1355;  .1.  J.  Miiller,  722,  et  seqq. ;  Latin  in  Chv- 
traeus,  Historia,  222  et  seqq.     See  Salig,  I.,  281-2. 

t  C.  R.  II.,  279;  Salig,  L,  282;  Schimnacher,  p.  519. 


144  EFFOETS   AT   RECONCILIATION. 

Lutherans  should  abandon  their  views  and  condemn  their  doc- 
trine, before  the  views  of  their  opponents  should  be  condemned. 

2.  "What  had  been  said  in  regard  to  the  Confutation  they 
could  not  approve.  They  had  not  ridiculed  nor  given  occasion 
for  ridiculing  the  Imperial  Edicts.  They  could  not  discover  that 
they  were  forbidden  by  the  Imperial  Laws  to  dispute  on  the 
faith.  They  knew  how  far  matters  of  faith  could  be  discussed, 
and  how  far  not.  It  is  not  forbidden  by  the  laws  to  confess  the 
Christian  faith,  and  in  a  Christian  and  charitable  way  to  point 
out  and  to  abolish  abuses.  Inasmuch  as  the  Catholic  doctors  had 
the  Confession  in  hand  so  many  weeks,  how  could  it  be  expected 
that  the  Lutherans  should  be  satisfied  with  the  mere  reading  of 
the  Confutation? 

3.  As  regards  their  consciences  they  confess  that  they  are 
men  and  sinners,  but  bj'  the  grace  of  God  they  have  more  peace- 
ful consciences  than  some  who  had  persecuted  the  doctrine, 
driven  away  the  preachers,  and  had  not  given  place  to  the  truth. 
They  had  reposed  their  consciences,  not  upon  their  preachers, 
but  upon  the  truth  of  God's  Word;  and  they  had  never  turned 
from  the  unity  of  the  Empire  and  of  the  Church,  but  by  admis- 
sion of  the  Word  of  God  they  had  promoted  it. 

4.  They  had  nothing  in  common  with  the  sects.  But  so  many 
abuses  have  been  taught  that  they  can  no  longer  be  borne.  Had 
the  Bishops  been  careful,  unity  could  have  been  maintained.  At 
the  Niirnberg  Diet,  Pope  Adrian  confessed  that  all  these  griev- 
ances had  proceeded  from  the  Roman  court  and  from  other 
prelates.  In  their  Confession  they  had  said  nothing  about  many 
abuses  in  the  Roman  Church. 

5.  As  regards  their  preachers,  they  knowingly  tolerate  no 
immoral  preachers.  But  it  is  well  known  that  on  the  other  side 
ministers  live  with  harlots,  say  the  Mass  frivolously,  and  prac- 
tice simony. 

6.  They  are  still  ready,  so  far  as  is  consistent  with  God's 
Word,  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  Bishops,  and  in  every- 
thing to  unite  with  others,  in  so  far  as  their  consciences  will 
permit. 

7.  That  in  appealing  to  a  council,  they  seek  nothing  contrary 
to  law,  but  rather  do  they  evince  their  obedience,  because  a  coun- 
cil is  the  regular  way  of  treating  such  matters.  Should  other 
feasible  ways  be  proposed  for  the  settlement  of  the  alienation, 
their  approval  will  not  be  wanting.  They  thought  that  it  would 
be  more  in  harmony  with  the  Emperor's  Proclamation  for  both 


EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATIOX.  145 

sides  to  choose  an  equal,  but  small,  number  of  men  who  would 
treat  with  each  other  on  the  articles  in  dispute,  and  aim  to 
bring  about  an  agreement.  On  their  part,  they  were  ready  to 
do  all  that  could  be  done  with  a  good  conscience.* 

We  thus  learn  that  the  Catholic  Committee  was  harsh,  mina- 
tory and  denunciative.  The  Protestant  Princes  were  firm,  mod- 
erate, conciliatory.  Both  parties  desired  imity.  The  Committee 
demanded  the  unconditional  surrender  of  the  Protestants  to  the 
Catholic  Church.  The  Protestants  demanded  the  abatement  of 
well-known  abuses,  and  sought  to  effect  unity  by  conferences  and 
by  mutual  concessions.  But  the  proposition  of  the  Protestants 
for  the  appointment  of  a  smaller  committee,  to  be  composed  of 
an  equal  number  of  representatives  from  each  side,  w^as  so  evi- 
dently wise  and  just,  that  it  was  approved  the  next  day  by  the 
Emperor  and  his  counsellors.! 

2.     The   Committee   of  Fourteen.  ^ 

The  following  day,  August  15th,  "a  committee  of  fourteen 
persons  was  ordered  by  His  Majesty,  seven  from  each  side,  who 
should  consult  together  and  should  treat  of  the  matters  pertain- 
ing to  God's  Word  and  to  the  faith,  and  should  consider  in  a 
friendly  manner  how  the  difference  in  faith  could  be  removed.''  t 
The  Committee  was  to  consist  of  one  Prince,  one  Bishop  or  cler- 
ical Prelate,  two  jurists  and  three  theologians  from  each  side. 
The  Committee,  as  actually  constituted,  consisted  of  two  Princes, 
two  jurists  and  three  theologians  from  each  side,  as  follows : 

From  the  Catholic  Side. 
Duke  Henry  of  Brimswick. 
The  Bishop  of  Augsburg. 
The  Chancellor  of  Cologne. 
The  Chancellor  of  Baden. 

Dr.  John  Eck,  Theologian  of  the  Duke  of  Bavaria. 
Dr.  Conrad  Wimpina,  Theologian  of  Elector  Joachim. 
Dr.  John  Cochlaeus,  Theologian  of  Duke  George  of  Saxony. § 

*  Answer  in  Chytraeus  (German),  130  et  seqq. ;  J.  J.  Miiller,  pp.  727-741; 
Wakh,  XVI.,  1637  et  seqq.;  Chytraeus    (Latin),   225   et  seqq.     See  SaUg, 

t  Schirrmacher,  pp.  211,  520;  Chytraeus,  p.  232. 

I  We  have  here  combined  the  accounts  found  in  Spalatin's  Annales,  pp. 
152,   153,  and'  in  Schirrmacher,  pp.  211,  212,  521.     See  J.  J.  Miiller,  pp. 

740.3  !    rr  J  1  J    rsr 

§  Duke  Henry  of  Brunswick  served  on  the  Committee  for  a  very  few 
days,  but  when  he  was  sent  in  pursuit  of  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  who  had 

10 


146  EFFORT!?  AT  RECOXCILIATIOX. 

From  the  Side  of  the  Protestants. 

Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony. 

Margrave  George  of  Brandenburg. 

Dr.  Gregory  Briick,  Chancellor  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

Dr.  Sebastian  Heller,  Chancellor  of  Margrave  George. 

Master  Philip  Melanchthon,  Saxon  theologian. 

John  Brentz,  Theologian  of  Margrave  George. 

Erhard  Schnepf,  Hessian  theologian.* 

The  Committee  held  its  first  meeting  on  the  afternoon  of 
August  16th.  But  already  two  days  earlier  the  Archbishop  of 
Mayence,  Duke  George,  and  others,  had  commissioned  Dr.  John 
Eck  to  prepare  an  opinion  on  all  the  articles  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession. 

In  the  execution  of  his  commission,  Eck  followed  in  general 
the  Confutation  of  August  3d.  He  approved  the  following  ar- 
ticles as  agreeing  with  the  teaching  of  the  Church :  1,  3,  5,  6, 
8,  9,  10,  13,  16,  17,  18,  19.  The  following  articles  he  regarded 
as  differing  in  part  from  the  teaching  of  the  Church :  2,  4,  11, 
12,  14,  15.  The  following,  he  declares,  differ  from  the  teaching 
of  the  Church:  7,  20,  21.t 

He  declares  that  all  the  articles  of  Part  II.  of  the  Confession 
differ  from  the  teaching  of  the  Church.  He  then  says :  "  In  a 
word,  articles  difficult  of  reconciliation,  and  not  acceptable  to 
the  Church,  are : 

"Of  the  AVorship  of  the  Saints. 

"Of  Communion  of  both  Kinds. 

"Of  the  Marriage  of  Priests. 

"Of  Monastic  Vows. 

"Of  the  Sacrifice  of  the  ]\Iass. 

"Of  Human  Institutions. 

"I  think  all  the  difficultj'^  lies  in  these  six  points.  Whatever 
difficulty  there  is  in  the  other  articles  can  be  easily  settled  and 
removed  by  a  committee  of  two  Princes  and  two  learned  men 
from  each  side. ' '  t 

left  Augsburg,  August  (ith,  "without  the  knowledge,  will  and  permission 
of  the  Emperor"  (Pastor,  p.  44;  Schirrmacher,  p.  189;  C.  E.,  II.,  291), 
Duke  George  was  appointed  in  his  place. 

*  Schirrmacher,  pp.  Ill,  112;  Chytraeus  (Latin),  p.  238;  J.  J.  Miiller, 
Historie,  pp.  742,  743;  C.  R.  II.,  311,  312.  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly, 
July,  1900,  pp.  374  et  seqq. 

t  Eck  wrote  this  opinion  August  14th.  Chytraeus  (Latin),  p.  232; 
Wiedemann's  Br.  Johann  EcJc,  p.  593.  Of  Article  X.  he  says:  "Articulus 
X.  concordat  <le  voritate  eucharistiae,  non  tamen  rapiatur  ad  utramque 
speciem. ' ' 

4  The  Opinion,  in  its  full  text,  in  Chytraeus  (Latin),  yp.  232  et  scqq. 


EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION.  147 

And  on  August  15th,  the  Protestant  theologians  presented  to 
the  Protestant  Princes  an  Opinion  on  the  subject  of  concord. 
Very  justly  does  Plitt  say  that  "this  Opinion  sounds  extra- 
ordinarily pacific."  *  It  opens  thus:  "It  is  our  humble  opinion 
that  the  Princes  ought  to  seek  out  all  means  and  ways  to  pre- 
serve a  permanent  peace,  and  to  prevent  injury  to  the  country 
and  to  the  people.  We  cannot  answer  before  God  if  we  persist 
in  an  unnecessary  schism.  We  observe  that  daily  the  people  are 
becoming  more  wanton,  that  erring  sects  are  increasing,  and 
that — which  may  God  forefend — war  is  threatened,  which  may 
overthrow  both  the  Church  and  the  Empire.  Such  important 
matters  should  be  carefully  considered. 

"If  the  Princes  have  neglected  the  proper  means,  they  are 
responsible  for  all  slaughters,  etc.  They  are  negligent  in  regard 
to  the  blessings  that  may  follow,  viz.,  that  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation, and  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  may  come  to  many  millions  of 
persons  by  whom  Christ  may  be  glorified. 

"It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  discipline  be  adminis- 
tered in  Church  and  in  school,  lest  the  people  become  rude  and 
heathenish.  But  now  no  proper  discipline  can  be  established  or 
maintained  while  this  schism  lasts.  It  were  better  to  become  Jews, 
and  to  live  under  discipline,  even  though  some  practice  evil, 
than  to  become  heathenish  and  wild,  since  God  preferred  the 
Jews  to  the  heathen. 

"Therefore  we  most  hinnbly  pray  the  Princes,  for  God's  sake 
and  for  their  own  welfare,  to  strive  to  make  peace,  and  see  to  it 
that,  should  the  enemy  become  too  harsh,  our  consciences  should 
become  easier.  God  grant  that  the  delinquency  may  not  be 
with  us." 

Then,  after  further  preliminary  discussion,  the  theologians 
name  four  conditions,  from  which,  they  say,  they  cannot  depart : 

"1.  That  the  doctrine  of  faith,  works  and  Christian  free- 
dom, as  it  has  hitherto  existed  among  us,  shall  be  preached  ac- 
cording to  the  Confession. 

' '  2.     That  both  forms  of  the  sacraments  be  given  to  the  laity. 

"3.  That  it  be  not  required  to  restore  Private  Masses,  as  the 
opposing  party  has  hitherto  held  them,  making  them  an  offering 
for  the  forgiveness  of  the  sins  of  the  living  and  the  dead. 

Coelestin.  pp.  36-37.  Schirrmacher,  pp.  203  et  seqq.  German  translation  in 
the  German  Chvtraens,  pp.  135  et  seqq.  English  translation  in  The  Luth- 
eran Quarterhi  'for  Jnlv,  1900,  pp.  383  et  seqq.  Already  on  the  fourteenth 
of  Angust,  Eck  had  declared  that  ''they  did  not  want  any  Princes  on  the 
committee,  for  the  Princes  are  self-conceited  fools. "  C.  R.  II.,  279. 
*  Apologie,  p.  50. 


148  EFFORTS   AT   RECO>'CILIATIOX. 

"4.  That  marriage  be  left  free  to  the  priests  and  to  other 
ministers. ' ' 

To  the  Bishops  they  concede  full  jurisdiction  in  spiritual  mat- 
ters "as  in  affairs  of  marriage,  and  of  the  ban  for  the  punish- 
ment of  open  sins,  but  not  in  matters  pertaining  to  civil  govern- 
ment."  Of  the  Pope  they  say :  "Though  the  Pope  be  Antichrist, 
yet  we  may  be  subject  to  him  as  the  Jews  were  subject  to  Phar- 
aoh in  Egypt,  and  subsequently  were  subject  to  Caiaphas.  But 
the  pure  doctrine  must  be  allowed. ' '  They  think  that  the  matter 
of  monasticism  might  be  left  free,  and  that  the  restoration  of 
the  episcopal  jurisdiction  might  be  made,  so  that  the  Bishops 
should  ordain  the  priests,  and  should  regulate  the  ceremonies, 
but  only  to  the  extent  that  they  do  not  oppose  or  persecute  the 
Lutheran  doctrine,  nor  bind  impious  burdens  upon  anyone.* 

Eck's  Opinion  and  the  Opinion  of  the  Lutheran  theologians 
formed  the  two  foci  towards  which  the  discussions  of  the  Com- 
mittee centered,  though  there  were  numerous  deflections  from 
both  sides,  but  in  the  direction  of  a  steady  approximation. 

3.     The  Meetings  of  the  Committee. 

This  Committee  held  its  first  session  in  the  Rathaus  on  the 
afternoon  of  August  16th.  Dr.  Hieronymus  Yehus,  Chancellor 
of  Baden,  was  appointed  spokesman  on  the  Catholic  side,  and 
Dr.  Gregory  Briick,  chancellor  on  the  Protestant  side.  George 
Spalatin  was  chosen  to  act  as  secretary.  It  was  mutually  agreed 
that  the  discussions  should  be  conducted  in  an  amicable  manner ; 
that  the  conclusions  reached  should  be  referred  to  the  Emperor; 
that  nothing  should  be  considered  that  is  contrary  to  the  Word 
of  God  and  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  and  that  the  pro- 
ceedings were  not  to  be  divulged  except  to  those  who  are  inter- 
ested. The  Augsburg  Confession  was  made  the  basis  of  dis- 
cussion. 

These  preliminaries  having  been  determined,  the  debate  be- 
gan.   Dr.  John  Eck  and  Philip  Melanehthon  were  the  chief  de- 

*  Given  in  Schirrmacher,  pp.  287  et  seqq.  In  a  somewhat  fuller  text  in 
C.  E.  II.,  281  et  seqq.  Spalatin 's  Annates,  pp.  229  et  seqq.  Latin  in  Chy- 
traeus,  pp.  236  et  seqq.  Coelestin,  III.,  31  et  seqq.  Forstemann  (who 
erroneously  dates  August  18th),  II.,  244  et  seqq.  On  the  margin  opposite 
to  the  section  about  the  Pope,  Briick  wrote  with  his  own  hand :  "1  am  in 
doubt  about  this.  Since  we  say  that  the  Pope  is  Antichrist  on  account  of 
his  enormous  sins,  how  can  we  with  a  good  conscience  reverence  Antichrist 
and  practice  his  abuses'?  If  this  be  done,  the  Pope  is  not  opposed  to  us. 
If  we  are  subject  to  his  human  difference,  even  this  does  not  make  any 
difference.  But  he  claims  and  defends  the  papacy  jure  divino. "  C.  R. 
II.,  284,  margin. 


EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATIOX.  149 

baters.  Spalatin,  the  secretary,  has  left  us  a  report  of  what 
ensued.  No  objection  was  made  by  the  Catholics  to  the  first 
article  of  the  Confession.  Eck  complained  that  in  the  second 
article  Melanchthon  had  employed  unusual  words,  but  he  de- 
clared that  in  other  respects  the  article  was  unobjectionable. 
There  was  perfect  agreement  in  regard  to  the  third  article.  The 
main  contention  that  afternoon  was  over  the  fourth  article,  and 
particularly  over  the  word  sola  in  the  formula,  faith  alone  saves. 
Eck  said  that  that  word  could  not  be  tolerated.  Brentz  replied 
that  it  could  not  be  surrendered,  for  it  had  been  employed  by 
Ambrose  and  Hilary,  and  was  derived  from  Paul.  Finally  Eck 
said :  ' '  You  confess  that  forgiveness  of  sin  takes  place  by  grace 
which  makes  acceptable,  and  by  faith  in  a  formal  way,  and  by 
the  "Word  and  the  sacraments  in  an  instrumental  way.  The 
article  is  to  be  so  stated." 

Of  Articles  V.,  VI.,  VII.,  VIII.,  Eck  said:  "In  foundation 
and  in  substance  we  are  not  divided. ' '  Spalatin  reports  further : 
"No  objection  was  made  to  the  ninth  article,  of  Baptism.  The 
tenth  article,  de  eucUaristia,  of  the  venerable  sacrament  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ,  was  not  found  wanting,  except  that 
the  word  realiter  or  suhstantialiter,  or,  in  the  German,  wesentlicJi, 
should  be  added. ' '  * 

Both  Spalatin  and  Schirrmacher  say  that  "in  this  first  session 
they  agreed  on  eleven  articles  of  the  Confession."  The  twelfth 
was  under  discussion  when  the  session  closed. 

The  next  day,  August  17th,  the  Committee  was  in  session 
both  in  the  forenoon  and  in  the  afternoon.  As  the  result  of 
deliberation,  the  parties  agreed  on  fifteen  out  of  the  first  twenty- 
one  articles  of  the  Confession.  Three  were  held  under  dispute 
and  three  were  reserved  to  be  considered  in  connection  with 
Part  II.  On  the  eighteenth  the  Lutherans  made  a  Declaration  of 
the  articles  on  which  the  Committee  had  agreed: 

"On  the  first  article  there  is  agreement. 

*  Annales,  pp.  159  et  seqq.;  Miiller,  Historie,  p.  752.  Cochlaeus  reports  in 
his  Philippibae  Quatuor,  H.  la,  thus:  "The  Lutherans  of  their  own  accord 
gave  up  and  renounced  this  word  Sola,  and  no  longer  said  that  vce  are  justi- 
fied by  faith  alone.  Therefore,  a  brief  statement  of  concord  was  then  drawn 
up  in  the  briefest  possible  form  of  words — and  unless  my  memory  fails  me, 
it  was  written  by  Philip  himself,  namely,  that  justification  or  the  remission 
of  sins  takes  place  per  gratiam  gratum  facientem  et  fidem  formaliter,  per 
verbum  vero  et  sacramentum  instrumentaliter. ' '  Quoted  from  Plitt.  Apol- 
ogie  der  Augustana.  p.  49.  Melanchthon,  in  his  account  of  this  colloquy, 
Bays:  "He  (Eck)  wanted  us  to  write:  Quod  justificamur  per  gratiam  et 
fidem.  I  made  no  objection;  but  that  fool  doesn't  know  the  meaning  of  I 
the  word  grace."  C.  R.  II.,  300.  "The  sola  fide  was  at  least  formally 
dropped."    MoUer's  Kirchengeschichte  (2d  ed.),  p.  102. 


J 


150  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. 

"When  in  the  Latin  it  is  said  that  man  is  hy  nature  born 
without  the  fear  of  God  and  without  faith  in  God,  it  is  to  be 
understood,  not  only  that  young  children  cannot  have  this  power 
(Wirkung),  but  that,  weakened  by  nature,  they  are  unable  by 
natural  powers  to  have  the  fear  of  God  and  faith.  And  to  be 
born  without  such  power  and  gifts  is  a  want  of  righteousness 
which  we  are  understood  to  derive  from  Adam. 

' '  In  the  German  this  point  is  so  clear  that  it  was  not  attacked, 
namely,  that  we  are  not  able  by  nature  to  fear  God  and  to  be- 
lieve.   Adults  are  also  included. 

' '  Of  natural  lusts  Ave  hold  that  the  sin  of  nature  remains,  but 
the  guilt  is  removed  by  Baptism. 

"On  the  third  we  are  agreed. 

"As  an  explanation  of  the  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  articles  we 
confess  that  remission  of  sins  takes  place  through  grace,  whereby 
we  have  a  gracious  God,  and  that  in  us  it  takes  place  through 
faith,  and  by  the  Word  of  God  and  the  sacraments  as  instru- 
ments.* 

"On  the  seventh  article  there  is  agreement. 

"In  the  eighth  article.  Of  the  Church,  we  confess  that  in  this 
life  there  are  many  wicked  persons  and  sinners  in  the  Church. 

"On  the  ninth,  tenth  and  eleventh  articles  there  is  agreement. 

' '  In  the  twelfth  article,  Of  Sin,  w^e  do  not  deny  that  Repentance 
consists  of  three  parts,  viz..  Contrition,  which  is  alarm,  and  leads 
to  the  confession  of  sin.  Confession.  Yet  here  we  should  have 
proper  regard  to  absolution,  and  should  believe  that  sin  is  for- 
given on  account  of  the  merit  of  Christ.  The  third  part  is 
Satisfaction.  Thus  we  hold  alike.  Yet  we  are  not  agreed  as  to 
whether  satisfaction  is  necessary  to  the  remission  of  punishment. 

"On  the  thirteenth  article  there  is  agreement. 

"On  the  fourteenth  article  there  is  agreement,  so  far  as  per- 
tains to  words.  But  the  subject  has  been  referred  to  the  article. 
Of  Ecclesiastical  Power. 

"The  fifteenth  article  has  been  referred  to  the  article,  Of 
Episcopal  Jurisdiction  and  Monastic  Vows. 

"On  the  sixteenth,  seventeenth,  eighteenth  and  nineteenth  ar- 
ticles there  is  agreement. 

"On  the  twentieth  article,  so  much  as  pertains  to  the  preach- 
ers and  the  Apology,  for  these  will  be  considered  in  the  proper 

*  Chytraeus  gives  the  Latin  text  thus:  Quod  remissio  peccatorum  fiat  per 
gratiam  gratum  facientem  et  per  fidem  in  nobis.  P.  267.  Spalatin  has 
Avritten:  "In  the  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  articles  we  are  agreed.''  Fiirste- 
mann,  II.,  p.  231,  margin. 


EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION.  151 

place,  since  we  are  not  considering  such  things  in  this  negotia- 
tion. But  as  regards  the  faith,  we  abide  by  the  fourth  article 
and  the  declaration  in  regard  to  it.  In  regard  to  good  works, 
we  are  agreed  that  we  must  and  ought  to  do  good  works,  and 
that  works  that  proceed  from  faith  and  grace  are  well-pleasing  to 
God.  But  whether  these  works  are  meritorious,  or  in  what  man- 
ner they  are  meritorious,  also  whether  or  how  we  shall  trust  in 
them — here  there  is  no  agreement.     Hence  it  is  deferred. 

"On  the  twenty-first  article  we  are  agreed  in  regard  to  two 
points,  namely,  that  the  saints  and  angels  with  God  in  heaven 
pray  for  us;  and  the  custom  of  the  Church  which  cherishes  the 
memory  of  the  saints  and  prays  God  to  assist  us  by  the  prayers 
of  the  Church,  is  Christian  and  is  to  be  held.  But  as  regards 
the  invocation  of  the  saints,  we  are  agreed  in  this,  namely,  that 
there  exists  no  express  command  of  the  Scriptures  which  en- 
joins upon  anyone  the  invocation  of  the  saints.  But  as  to 
whether  the  saints,  according  to  the  received  custom  of  the 
Universal  Church,  may  be  invoked  with  intention — on  this  there 
is  difference  of  opinion,  since  the  Elector,  the  Princes  and  other 
allies  regard  it  as  doubtful  and  as  dangerous  on  account  of  the 
many  abuses,  and  because  there  is  no  express  Scripture  for  it."  * 

This  is  the  first,  and,  consequently,  the  oldest  official  declara- 
tion {ErM'drung  is  the  title  in  German)  made  in  regard  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  it  was  made  by  no  less  than  seven 
persons,  who  had  been  active  in  the  preparation  of  the  Confes- 
sion, two  of  whom  had  signed  it  as  containing  the  doctrines 
taught  by  their  preachers  in  their  dominions.  Then,  too,  it  must 
be  borne  in  mind  that  this  declaration  or  explanation  was  such 
as  satisfied  the  minds  of  the  most  pronounced  adherents  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  as  Duke  George,  Eck  and  Wimpina. 
The  question  must  Here  be  raised,  Is  such  declaration  or  explana- 
tion the  true  and  intended  meaning  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  ? 
Or,  in  other  words,  Were  such  doctrines  taught  in  the  dominions 
of  the  subscribers  of  the  Augsburg  Confession?  Or  was  such  a 
declaration  or  explanation  wrung  from  the  Committee  in  view 
of  threatened  and  impending  evils?     If  we  affirm  in  regard  to 

*  Forstemann 's  TJrJcunden'buch,  II.,  230  et  seqq.,  taken  from  Spalatin's 
^Manuscript  found  in  the  Ansbach  Archives.  There  is  also  a  copy  in  the 
Weimar  Archives.  It  is  probable  that  J.  J.  Miiller  copied  this  into  his 
JJistorie,  pp.  745,  et  seqq.  It  varies  in  some  places  from  Forstemann 's 
copy.  In  Jena  edition  of  Luther's  Works,  V.,  103,  104.  St.  Louis  ed., 
XVI.,  1383-4.  Latin  in  Coelestin,  III.,  .55,  56.  Chytraeus,  267,  268. 
These  texts  also  differ  somewhat  from  each  other.  But  the  differences  are 
not  material. 


152  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. 

the  first  two  questions,  then  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  its 
chief  articles,  includes,  rather  than  excludes,  the  characteristic 
teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  If  we  deny  in  regard 
to  the  first  two,  then  we  are  forced  to  affirm  in  regard  to  the 
third  question,  and  consequently  to  declare  that  the  Lutheran 
seven  were  deficient  in  those  qualities  of  moral  heroism  for 
which  some  of  them  have  been  long  and  loudly  praised.  The 
data  given  in  the  Declaration  furnish  the  legitimate  premises 
for  one  or  the  other  of  these  conclusions. 

But  the  historian  does  not  have  for  his  chief  mission  the  de- 
duction of  conclusions,  but  the  exhibition  of  the  facts.  There 
is  the  Declaration.  It  speaks  for  itself.  It  show^s  conclusively 
that  the  Protestant  seven  were  willing  to  make  peace  on  terms 
that  must  have  proved  humiliating  to  themselves,  and  disastrous 
to  their  cause.  Their  compromise  on  Article  IV.  of  the  Confes- 
sion fully  justifies  Seckendorf's  comment  that  it  contains  the 
seeds  of  disputes.*  They  had  indeed,  in  great  part,  at  least,  if 
not  entirely,  surrendered  the  acropolis  of  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sion, namely,  that  men  are  justified  by  faith  alone  for  the  sake 
of  Christ.  Had  concord  been  established  on  the  basis  of  this 
Declaration,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  way  would  have 
been  opened  in  the  dominions  of  the  Princes  for  the  restoration 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  justification  as  the  same  had 
been  taught  in  the  scholastic  theology,  and  as  it  Avas  subsequently 
promulgated  officially  by  the  Council  of  Trent. 

And  what  shall  we  say  in  regard  to  Article  X.?  Here  the 
agreement  is  categorical.  The  German  texts  are  all  alike,  ex- 
cept in  the  spelling:  Im  Neunden,  zcehenden  und  eilfften  ar- 
tickeln  ist  man  gleich,  that  is,  in  articles  nine,  ten  and  eleven 
they  are  agreed.  In  the  Latin,  Coelestin  has :  In  9,  10, 
11  articulis  consentimus,  that  is,  ,  in  articles  9,  10,  11 
we  agree.  In  Chytraeus:  In  9,  10,  11  consensus  est,  that 
is,  in  9,  10,  11  there  is  agreement.  Hence,  we  are  bound 
to  conclude  either  that  the  Protestant  seven  had  allowed 
the  Catholic  seven  to  understand  Article  X.  in  their  own 
way,  and  to  read  into  it  the '  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of 
the  sacrament,  or  that  they  held  at  the  time,  and  had  purposely 
expressed  in  Article  X.,  a  view  of  the  sacrament  that  could  be 
harmonized  with  the  Roman  Catholic  teaching.  The  latter  alter- 
native, rather  than  the  former,  must  be  accepted.  The  explana- 
tion given  by  Pastor,  that  Eck  understood  the  theological  terms 
*  Historia   Luther anismi,  II.,    179. 


EFFORTS   AT   RECONCILIATION,  153 

in  the  scholastic  sense,  and  Melanchthon  in  the  new  sense  given 
to  them  by  Luther,  is  totally  inadequate.*  It  only  exposes  Mel-  V 
anchthon  to  the  charge  of  deception,  since  he  knew  the  scholastic 
meaning  of  theological  terms  just  as  well  as  Eck  did.  He  could 
not  have  failed  to  understand  Eck's  meaning.  Moreover,  his 
own  language  shows  what  he  must  have  meant,  unless  again  we 
are  willing  to  subject  him  to  the  charge  of  purposeful  deception. 
For  already  on  the  fourth  he  had  written  to  Cardinal  Cam- 
peggius:  "We  confess  that  in  the  species  of  the  bread  the  true 
body  of  Christ  is  contained,  or  by  concomitance,  the  blood,  and 
therefore  the  whole  Christ.  In  the  species  of  the  wine  likewise 
the  whole  Christ, ' '  f  and  had  used  the  very  language  of  Medieval 
Catholicism.  In  the  Apology  (Prima  Adumhratio)  offered  to 
the  Emperor  September  22d,  he  wrote :  "Of  the  tenth.  Neither 
do  we  imagine  that  the  dead  body  of  Christ  is  taken  in  the  sacra- 
ment, or  the  body  without  the  blood,  nor  the  blood  without  the 
body.  But  we  believe  that  the  whole  living  Christ  is  present  in 
either  part  of  the  sacrament."  % 

And  that  they  did  not  mean  to  exclude  the  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation,  we  can  readily  conclude  from  the  defense  of 
Article  X.  in  the  first  edition  of  the  Apology,  published  with  the 
editio  princeps  of  the  Confession  in  1531.  Here,  on  the  one 
hand,  Melanchthon  writes  not  one  word  against  the  Eoman  Cath- 
olic doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper;  but  on  the  other  hand,  he 
introduces  the  word  essentialiter,  which  had  been  disiderated  in 
the  Catholic  Confutation  and  also  in  the  first  session  of  the 
Committee  of  Fourteen,  and  quotes  with  approbation  from  the 
Greek  Canon  of  the  Mass  as  follows:  "We  have  learned  that 
not  only  the  Roman  Church  affirms  the  bodily  presence  of  Christ, 
but  the  Greek  Church  both  now  holds  and  formerly  did  hold 
the  same  view.  For  that  is  proved  by  their  Canon  of  the  Mass, 
in  which  the  Priest  publicly  prays  that  when  the  bread  is  changed 
it  may  become  the  body  of  Christ.  And  the  Bulgarian  (Theo- 
philact  of  Bulgaria),  a  writer,  as  it  seems  to  us,  not  foolish,  says 
that  the  bread  is  not  only  a  figure,  but  is  truly  changed  into  the 
flesh  of  Christ. ' '  §    And  that  this  article  was  interpreted  in  favor 

*  Seunionsiestre'bungen,  p.  48. 

t  C.  R  II..  246. 

t  C  E  XXVII.  285,  333.  In  the  chief  parts  Melanchthon  employs  the 
very  language  of  the  Papal  Confutation.  C.  R.  XXVII.,  106.  See  Cochlaeus, 
T  II  Articl-eln:  "ITnrler  the  species  of  bread  and  wme  and  under  each 
of  the  same,  the  true  body  and  the  true  blood  of  Christ  our  Saviour,  are 
essentially  and  truly  present."     A.  IV.,  4. 

§In  Jonas'  German  translation  of  the  Apology  and  m  the  edition  that 


154  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. 

of  transubstantiation  by  the  Catholic  writers  is  known  to  all  who 
have  read  the  lucubrations  of  Andrew  Fabricius  in  his  Har- 
monia  Confessionis  Augustanae. 

It  is  also  surprising  that  there  should  have  been  agreement  in 
regard  to  the  eleventh  article.  Spalatin  has  recorded  exactly 
the  following:  "Of  Article  XI.,  Of  Confession,  Dr.  Eek  says: 
*In  the  chief  thing  (HaubtsacJt)  it  agrees  with  the  Church.  The 
sin  which  one  does  not  know,  one  need  not  confess. '  "  * 

When  Ave  recall  that  the  canons  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
require  every  member  of  that  Church  to  confess  at  least  once 
a  year,  and  that,  too,  to  his  or  her  own  priest,  we  cannot  but 
conclude  that  there  was  either  a  great  lack  of  candor,  or  an 
enormous  self-deception  on  the  part  of  the  evangelical  members 
of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen.  They  Imew.  every  one  of  them, 
what  was  meant  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  by  Confessio 
(Beicht),  and  ahsolutio  privata.  Every  one  of  them  had  gone 
to  Confession  and  had  received  private  absolution  many  a  time 
before  he  had  allied  himself  with  Luther;  and  they  all  must 
have  known  what  Eck  meant  by  "the  chief  thing." 

Hence,  the  Protestant  seven  were  by  no  means  justified  in 
allowing  Eck,  and  his  p^rt  of  the  Connnittee.  to  rest  unchal- 
lenged in  the  canonic  and  traditional  sense  of  those  words, 
unless  they  themselves  meant  that  they  should  be  so  understood 
by  themselves  and  by  their  party.  Eck  may  have  been  cunning, 
but,  undoubtedly,  the  Evangelicals  were  either  weak  or  obtuse. 
Hence,  the  Niirnberg  Senate  was  fully  justified  in  its  sharp 
censure  of  the  concession  made  in  this  article,  since  such  con- 
cession involved  the  return  essentially  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
auricular  confession  and  the  enumeration  of  sins,  and  connected 
the  Eucharist  inseparably  with  Confession.! 

Something  also  might  be  said  about  the  agreement  on  Article 
XIII.  But  we  must  remember  that  this  article,  as  it  was  read 
and  presented  to  the  Emperor,  did  not  have  the  damnatory 
paragraph  about  the  opns  operation.  Neither  did  Article  XVIII. 
have,  at  that  time,  the  damnatory  paragraph.  Even  the  partial 
agreement  on  Article  XX.  gives  occasion  for  surprise,  since  in 
this  article  the  Confession  had  borne  explicit  testimony  against 

accompanied  the  octavo  edition  of  the  Confession  (autumn  of  1531)  the 
quotation  from  the  Bulgarian  is  omitted.  Already  it  had  given  offence.  See 
TTie  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  1900,  p.  387,  note. 

*  Annales,  p.  167. 

t  Coelestin,  III.,  81 ;  Chytraeus,  p.  299. 


EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION.  155 

the  Roman  Catholic  teaching,  that  men  are  justified  by  faith 
and  works. 

But  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  Protestant  seven  were  so 
intently  centered  on  the  work  of  reconciliation,  that  they  seem 
not  to  have  comprehended  the  significance  and  the  bearing 
of  the  Catholic  demands,  and  of  their  own  concessions.  They 
had  clasped  hands  with  the  Catholic  seven  on  fifteen  articles  of 
the  Augsburg. 

And  that  the  extent  of  the  Protestant  concessions  may  be- 
come still  clearer  to  us,  we  present  the  following  from  the 
Catholic  side.*  "The  first  part  of  the  Confession  contains 
twenty-one  articles,  in  w^hich  they  agree  with  us  entirely  in 
fifteen,  but  in  the  others  partly :  For  three  are  deferred  to  the 
Abuses,  namely,  the  eleventh,  the  fourteenth,  and  the  fifteenth. 
Three  differ  in  part,  namely,  the  twelfth,  the  twentieth  and  the 
twenty-first. 

I. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII.        To  be    /     XI.         ^.^      I   XII. 
1  l)iTTPr    1 

Agree  ^      VIII.        treated     XIV.        /^^^^^^       XX. 

IX.         later      (     XV.        "^  P^^'^  (  XXI." 

X. 

XIII. 

XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 

"In  discussing  justifying  faith,"  says  this  report,  "we  were 
unwilling  to  admit  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  because 
the  Apostle  James  does  not  admit  that.  Then  it  was  agreed 
to  say  that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  but  not  by  faith  alone, 
because  no  Scripture  has  that,  but  rather  the  contrary.  There-  , 
fore,  when  the  word  Sola  was  omitted,  it  was  agreed  that  justi- 
fication or  remission  of  sins  takes  place  per  gratiam  gratum 

*  Given  by  J.  J.  Miiller,  p.  775  et  seqq.  The  tabulated  exhibit  is  found 
in  Coelestin,  III.,  44;  Chytraeus,  Historia  (German),  p.  150;  in  Chytraeus 
(Latin),  p.  243;  in  Miiller,  p.  781. 


156  p:fforts  at  reconciliatiox. 

facientem  et  fidem  formaliter  per  verbum  et  sacramentum  in- 
strumentaliter,  that  is,  by  grace  that  makes  acceptable,  and  by 
faith  formally,  and  through  the  Word  and  the  sacrament  in- 
strumentally. ' '  Of  the  tenth  article  this  report  says :  ' '  They 
agree  that  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  are  truly  present,  and 
for  better  explanation  vere  et  realiter,  German,  wesentlich  was 
added. ' '  Of  the  thirteenth  article  it  is  said :  ' '  They  agree  that 
the  sacraments  were  instituted,  not  only  that  they  might  be 
marks  of  profession  among  men,  but  rather  that  they  might  be 
signs  and  testimonies  of  the  will  of  God  toward  us."  Of  article 
eighteen  it  is  said:  "They  agree  that  man  has  free-will,  but 
without  grace  it  cannot  work  grace." 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  Committee  had  agreed  on  fifteen 
out  of  the  twenty-one  Articles  of  Faith;  that  they  had  partly 
agreed  in  regard  to  three  others,  and  that  three  were  to  be  dis- 
cussed in  connection  with  the  Articles  on  Abuses.  The  conces- 
sions were  almost  entirely  from  the  Protestant  side.  Hence,  the 
Catholics,  in  their  report,  could  represent  the  Lutherans  as 
agreeing  with  them.  It  is  certain  that  the  Lutheran  seven  virtu- 
ally surrendered  the  article  that,  more  than  any  other,  is  distinc- 
tive of  Lutheranism,  "the  article,  of  the  standing  and  falling 
Church."  Indeed  had  reunion  been  effected  on  the  basis  of 
the  report  of  either  half  of  the  Committee  (and  the  two  reports 
are  essentially  identical).  Protestantism  would  have  been 
strangled  in  the  hour  of  its  birth,  and  Rome  would  have  re- 
gained her  sway  over  the  entire  German  Church.  The  fact  is, 
the  Protestants,  as  we  shall  hereafter  learn,  had  almost  com- 
pletely lost  their  courage,  and  seemed  willing — that  is,  the 
Saxons  and  Margravians — to  purchase  peace  at  almost  any  price. 
Happily,  there  was  an  influence,  partly  from  without  and 
partly  from  within — the  Niirnbergers,  the  Lliueburgers,  the 
Hessians  and  Luther — which  saved  the  day. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

EFFORTS  AT  RECONCILIATION. — CONTINUED. 

In  the  afternoon  of  August  18th,  the  joint  Committee  met  at 
the  Bathaus  and  took  up  the  Second  Part  of  the  Confession.* 
The  Catholics  preferred  to  begin  with  the  last  article,  fearing 
that  a  report  should  reach  the  people  about  the  action  on  both 
species  in  the  Eucharist.  But  when  the  Lutherans  objected,  the 
Catholics  prepared  terms  in  writing,  protesting,  however,  that 
''they  would  not  decide  nor  conclude  anything,  but  would  refer 
everything  to  the  Estates  and  to  the  Emperor. ' '  f  The  proposi- 
tion of  the  Catholics  was  laid  before  the  Lutherans  the  next  day, 
and  is  as  follows : 

"By  permission  of  the  Apostolic  See  or  of  its  Legate,  and 
with  the  consent  of  the  Emperor,  the  supreme  advocate  of  the 
Church,  both  species  of  the  sacrament  be  allowed  the  Lutherans 
on  about  the  following  terms : 

"I.  That  their  pastors  administer  both  species  to  their 
own  parishioners  only,  and  only  in  those  places  where  such  cus- 
tom has  prevailed  for  some  years  already. 

"II.  That  it  be  preceded  by  private  confession,  according  to 
ancient  custom. 

"III.  That  at  Easter,  and  whenever  this  sacrament  be  ad- 
ministered, they  teach  the  people  that  God  has  not  commanded 
to  receive  both  species. 

"IV.  That  they  teach  that  the  entire  Christ  is  present,  and 
is  received  under  one  species  not  less  than  under  both. 

"V.  That  they  teach  that  those  do  not  sin  who  commune 
under  only  one  species. 

"VI.  That  when  their  subjects  desire  only  one  species,  they 
shall  give,  or  cause  it  to  be  given  to  them. 

"VII.  That  they  shall  not  reserve  the  species  of  wine,  nor 
carry  it  through  the  streets  to  the  sick,  but  in  the  Church  or 
at  home  during  the  celebration  of  the  Masses,  administer  both 
species  to  those  who  desire  them."  i 

*  Spalatin,  Annales,  p.  169 ;  J.  J.  Miiller,  p.  781. 
t  Schirrmacher,  pp.  222,  223. 

i  Schirrmacher,  pp.  229,  230 ;  Coelestin,  III.,  44& ;  Chytraeus,  pp.  244, 
24.5. 

(157) 


158  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONTINUED. 

The  next  day,  August  20th,  the  Lutherans  reply  : 

"They  are  Avilling  that  the  sacrament  be  preceded  by  con- 
fession. They  are  willing  that  their  pastors  and  preachers  speak 
pacifically  on  these  subjects  until  there  is  a  future  decision  in 
a  council.  They  confess  likewise  that  the  entire  body  of  Christ 
is  under  the  species  of  bread.  They  deny  that  hitherto  they  had 
forbidden  the  sacrament  under  one  kind  to  anyone,  where  it 
could  be  had.  They  deny  that  among  them  the  species  of  wine 
had  been  reserved  in  vessels  or  carried  to  the  sick.  Finallj^ 
they  wish  that  the  venerable  sacrament  be  held  in  honor  among 
them  as  hitherto." 

Such  is  the  Lutheran  Reply  as  reported  in  Schirrmacher,  and 
by  Coelestin  and  Chytraeus,  who  proceed  to  say:  "When 
the  Catholics  sought  to  have  certain  ambiguous  words  explained, 
the  Lutherans,  after  considering  the  matter  for  some  time,  re- 
plied, August  21st,  that  every  person  intending  to  commune 
should  previously  make  confession  on  the  more  important 
points  by  Avhich  his  conscience  was  burdened,  in  order  to  seek 
counsel  and  consolation  on  these  things. 

"Secondly,  they  declare  that  they  believe  that  the  entire 
Christ,  his  body  and  blood,  true  God  and  man,  is  truly  under 
either  species,  or  under  the  alternate  species :  Sub  utraque 
specie  aut  etiam  sub  utralibet,  aut  altera  vere  esse. 

"Thirdly,  they  declare,  during  the  discussion,  that  they  do 
not  condenm  those  who  formerly  took,  or  now  take,  only  one 
species.  Neither  do  they  believe  that  they  do  wrong  who  receive 
one  species.  Nevertheless,  they  are  not  willing  to  have  this 
preached  to  theirs.  Also  the  deliberation  between  the  seven 
and  the  seven  was  only  in  regard  to  both  species.  Hence,  it  is 
evident  that  there  was  not  much  difference  between  the  parties 
on  this  subject.  For  in  these  things  they  differ  from  us  only 
in  that,  while  they  and  we  believe  that  those  do  not  sin  who  re- 
ceive one  species,  they  (the  Lutherans)  do  not  want  this 
preached  to  theirs,  though  they  confess  that  the  entire  Christ  is 
truly  under  one  species.  Nevertheless,  they  contend  that  the 
command  of  Christ,  given  alike  to  ministers  and  to  laymen,  is 
to  take  both,  because  he  said:  'Drink  ye  all  of  it.'  But  ours 
respond  from  Mark :  '  And  they  all  drank  of  it, '  so  that  it  is 
understood  that  it  was  said  to  the  twelve  disciples  who  supped 
with  him.  Hence,  but  for  obstinacy,  there  would  easily  have 
been  an  agreement  on  this  subject."* 

*  Coelestin,  III.,  44&. 


EFFORTS    AT    KECONCILIATION. — CONTINIJKI).  159 

The  demands  of  the  Catholics,  as  noted  above,  are  distinct 
and  unequivocal.  The  concessions  made  are  very  small,  and  of 
very  limited  application.  They  make  no  surrender  or  modifica- 
tion of  the  principle  of  communion  under  one  species.  The 
Protestants  may  administer  the  communion  under  both  species 
to  their  own  parishioners,  and  only  in  those 'places  where  the 
custom  has  long  been  in  use. 

The  reply  of  the  Lutherans  must  be  regarded  as  ambiguous 
and  evasive.  It  does  not  categorically  reject  the  communion 
under  one  species,  as  the  Confessors  had  done  on  the  basis  of 
the  Scriptures  and  of  history  in  Article  XXII.  of  the  Confes- 
sion. It  virtually  denies  what  had  been  there  affirmed.  IMore- 
over,  concomitance  is  admitted  in  amplest  terms,  and  the  private 
confession  of  the  more  important  sins  is  approved,  and  is  con- 
ceded as  a  prerequisite  to  communion.  Hence,  as  a  consequence 
of  the  slight  concessions  made  by  the  Catholic  seven  and  of  the 
large  concessions  made  by  the  Lutheran  seven,  the  report  is 
justified  in  sa;^ang  that  "there  was  not  much  difference  between 
the  parties  on  this  subject,"  that  is,  on  the  Article  De  Utraque 
Specie  Sacramenti  (Art.  XXII.). 

2.  .  The  Propositions  of  the  Catholics. 

Having  failed  to  agree  on  Article  XXII.  the  joint  Committee 
took  the  remaining  articles  of  the  Confession  in  order.  The 
propositions  of  the  Catholic  seven  and  the  responses  of  the 
Lutheran  seven  are  reported  by  Spalatin,  and  are  given  with 
great  fulness  in  Latin  by  Schirrmacher,  Coelestin  and 
Chytraeus,  and  in  German  by  J.  J.  ^Nliiller.  But  as  they  are  too 
long  to  be  transferred  in  full  to  these  pages,  we  content  our- 
selves here  with  a  synopsis. 

1.  In  regard  to  the  marriage  of  priests,  the  Catholics 
demanded  that  it  should  be  tolerated  only  where  the  custom 
had  existed  for  some  time  already;  that  there  be  no  new  mar- 
riages; that  priests  should  be  allowed  to  return  to  celibacy; 
that,  so  soon  as  it  could  be  done,  celibate  priests  be  put  into  the 
places  of  married  ones;  that  married  priests  be  ejected  from 
office,  unless  a  dispensation  could  be  obtained  from  the  Pope  or 
his  legate. 

The  Lutherans  reply  by  making  reference  to  their  Confes- 
sion, where  they  give  reasons  for  the  marriage  of  the  clergy. 
"On  this  subject  there  was  no  further  discussion  between  the 


160  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONTINUED. 

seven  and  the  neven,  because  there  was  greater  difference  here 
than  in  regard  to  both  species, ' '  says  the  report. 

2.  In  regard  to  the  Mass,  the  Catholics  demand  that  both 
public  and  private  Masses  shall  be  celebrated  on  the  altar  at 
the  usual  festivals,  and  that  both  canons  of  the  Mass  be  used, 
adding  that  in  tlie  Mass  Christ  is  offered  mystically  and  fig- 
uratively in  memory  of  his  passion  on  the  Cross. 

The  Lutherans  reply  that  the  ]Masses  are  celebrated  in  the 
usual  ecclesiastical  attire,  and  with  the  usual  ceremonies.  Wlien 
they  are  interrogated  about  the  Canon  and  about  Private  Masses, 
they  make  no  written  reply,  but  persist  in  rejecting  the  Canon 
and  Private  Masses. 

3.  In  regard  to  Confession,  Article  XXV.,  the  Catholics  pro- 
pose nothing  in  writing,  because  the  matter  had  been  already 
treated  in  Article  XI.  when  discussing  the  parts  of  penitence. 
The  Lutherans  refer  to  that  in  their  written  reply,  and  add 
these  three  things :  First,  that  confession  ought  not  to  be 
omitted,  on  account  of  the  great  consolation  in  the  absolution. 
Secondly,  that  it  may  be  known  how  grand  and  salutary  is  the 
power  of  the  Keys.  Thirdly,  that  the  people  may  be  accustomed 
to  confess  their  sins;  also  that  those  sins  are  remitted  which 
are  not  enumerated.  On  these  subjects  there  was  no  need  of 
further  discussion  between  the  parties. 

4.  Under  Article  XXVI.,  Of  the  Difference  of  Meats,  the 
Catholics  proposed  the  restoration  of  fasts,  festivals,  confessions, 
prayers,  processions,  ceremonies  and  the  distinctions  of  foods  and 
times,  as  they  had  been  observed  by  the  Catholic  Church  from 
of  old.  The  Lutherans  respond  that  for  the  sake  of  charity,  and 
for  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church,  general  ceremonies  may 
be  observed,  but  that  they  are  not  to  be  regarded  as  necessary 
to  the  worship  of  God.  They  consent  that  for  the  hearing  of 
the  Word  of  God,  and  for  the  administration  of  the  sacraments, 
the  following  days  are  to  be  observed :  All  Sundays,  Christmas, 
•St.  Stephen's,  St  John  the  Evangelist's,  the  Lord's  Circum- 
cision, Epiphany,  Holy  Week  for  celebrating  the  Passion  of 
Christ,  Easter  with  two  or  three  holidays.  Ascension  Day,  Pente- 
cost with  two  or  three  holidays,  the  Principal  Festivals  of  the 
Virgin,  the  Feasts  of  all  the  Apostles. 

5.  Coming  to  Article  XXVII.,  Of  Monastic  Vows,  the  Cath- 
olics demand  the  complete  restoration  of  the  monastic  institu- 
tion, in  all  its  privileges  and  exemptions.  The  Lutherans  refer 
to  what  they  had  said  on  these  matters  in  their  Confession,  ex- 


EFFORTS    AT    RECOXCILIATIOX. — CONTINUED.  161 

press  their  willingness  to  leave  it  to  the  consciences  of  monks 
and  nuns  to  remain  in  the  cloisters  or  to  leave  them  until  a 
decision  could  be  obtained  from  a  council,  are  willing  to  allow 
the  monks  and  nuns  their  accustomed  manner  of  life,  dress 
and  ceremonies,  are  willing  to  defend  them  from  violence  and 
wish  to  leave  the  income  of  the  dismantled  monasteries  with 
the  secular  power  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  those  who  have 
gone  out,  and  also  for  supporting  preachers,  parishes  and  schools, 
until  a  council  could  be  held. 

6.  As  touching  Article  XXVIII.,  Of  Ecclesiastical  Power, 
the  Catholics  demand  that  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the 
Bishops  remain  intact.  As  regards  abuses,  they  order  that  the 
Lutheran  Princes  shall  consult  with  the  other  Princes  of  the 
Empire,  and  shall  obey  the  common  conclusion;  though  should 
trouble  arise  with  the  Bishops  as  regards  jurisdiction,  or  in  any 
other  matter,  the  Lutheran  Princes  shall  suffer  no  prejudice 
on  account  of  such  an  arrangement.  The  Lutherans  agree  that 
the  jurisdiction  and  power  of  the  Bishops  shall  remain,  yet 
they  refuse  to  justify  their  neglect  of  preaching,  of  the  admin- 
istration of  the  sacraments,  of  ordination  and  other  abuses; 
that  the  pastors  and  preachers  should  be  subject  to  the  Bishops, 
that  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  in  matters  ecclesiastical  should 
not  be  impeded,  and  that  episcopal  excommunication,  in  cases 
appertaining  to  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  shall  not  be  impeded, 
provided  it  be  done  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures. 

"All  these  things  as  they  had  been  transacted,  were  laid 
before  the  Electors  and  other  Princes  and  Estates  of  the  Holy 
Roman  Empire  by  the  Catholic  deputies,  August  22d,  and 
publicly  read, ' '  *  that  is,  the  Report,  of  which  we  have  given  a 
synopsis  above,  was  read  by  the  Catholic  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee as  their  Report  of  the  transactions  of  the  Committee  of 
Fourteen. 

3.     The  Lutheran  Corrections. 

Both  Coelestin  and  Chytraeus  say  that  the  Report  of  the 
Catholics  is  not  accurate,  and  that  it  was  therefore  found  neces- 
sary to  have  corrections  made.*  This,  of  course,  was  done  by 
Melanchthon,  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that  his  corrections  do 
change  the  purview,  though  they  still  leave  much  to  be  desired. 
We  cannot  here  quote  all  that  he   wrote  in  correction  of  the 

*  Coelestin,  III.,  47;  Chytraeus,  p.  253. 
11 


162  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. CONTINUED. 

Catholic  Report,  but  it  is  important  and  just  that  we  recite  in 
full  the  most  essential  point:  "In  regard  to  Article  IV.,  of 
Justifying  Faith,  they  report  that  there  was  agreement,  so  as 
to  say :  That  we  are  justified  by  faith,  but  not  by  faith  alone, 
because  that  is  not  contained  in  the  Scripture,  but  rather  the 
contrary.  But  we  do  not  concede  that  it  is  not  contained  in 
the  Scripture  that  we  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  but:  that  the 
contrary  is  contained.  Therefore,  we  openly  contradicted  it 
by  quoting  Paul,  Rom.  8:  'Without  works,'  and  Ephesians  2: 
'It  is  the  gift  of  God,'  and,  'Without  works.' 

"Then,  after  a  long  discussion,  our  opponents  conceded  that 
remission  of  sins  occurs  neither  on  account  of  preceding  nor  of 
subsequent  works  or  merits. 

' '  Likewise  they  said  that  it  occurs  through  faith :  And  they 
added,  per  gratiam  gratum  facientem:  They  added  also  sacra- 
menta. 

"When  this  was  conceded,  we  said  that  we  did  not  exclude 
gratiam  and  sacramenta  by  the  word  Sola,  but  that  we  exclude 
works.  That  if  they  would  confess  that  remission  of  sins  occurs 
through  faith,  not  on  account  of  merits  preceding  or  follow- 
ing, we  would  not  quarrel  about  the  word  SOLA.  And  the  addi- 
tion was  made  to  our  Article  that  we  confess  that  remission  of 
sins  occurs  per  gratiam  gratum  facientem  et  fidem  formaliter, 
per  Verbum  et  Sacramenta  instrumentaliter.  The  Princes  of 
both  sides  remember  that  this  was  the  order  of  the  transaction."  * 

In  regard  to  the  other  points  this  is  the  substance : 

1.     Of  the  invocation  of  the  saints,  both  sides  agree  that  it  is 
not  expressly  commanded  in  the  Scriptures. 
'  2.     That  in  confession  only  the  chief  sins  should  be  enumer- 
ated. 

3.  That  they  do  not  wish  to  teach  that  those  who  receive  the 
sacrament  under  one  form  do  not  sin.  They  excuse  those  who 
take  the  sacrament  nnder  one  form  from  necessity  and  com- 
pulsion. 

4.  In  regard  to  celibacy  they  say  that  all  do  not  possess  the 
gift  from  God.  Hence,  it  is  to  tempt  God,  to  refuse  the  use  of 
God's  order  without  the  gift. 

5.  Against  the  allegation  of  the  Catholics  that  they  have 
rejected  Private  ]\Iasses  and  the  Canon  without  just  reason, 
they  reply  that  they  gave  ample  reasons  why  they  could  not  ap- 
prove either.     The  common  Mass  is  observed  by  them  with  great 

*  Coelestin,  III.,  folio  47. 


EFFORTS   AT    RECONCILIATION. CONTINUED.  IBii 

reverence  and  with  the  usual  ceremonies.  Masses  for  the  dead 
have  no  value.  Very  many  come  to  the  sacrament  causa  ventris, 
and  hence  receive  no  benefit. 

These  corrections  do  change  the  purview,  though  they  are  by 
no  means  satisfactory,  and,  as  we  shall  learn  hereafter,  they 
gave  grave  offence  to  many  in  the  Lutheran  party.  But  as 
Melanchthon's  corrections  were  too  long  to  be  read  before  the 
Emperor,  they  were  reduced  to  two  articles:  Of  Both  Species: 
of  the  Sacrament  and  Of  the  Marriage  of  Priests. 

As  these  two  art'icles  were  presented  as  a  kind  of  ultimatum 
on  the  part  of  the  Lutherans,  they  should  appear  here  in  full. 

Op  Both  Species  of  the  Sacrament. 

"1.  The  institution  of  Christ  and  the  distinct  word  of  the 
Evangelists  is :     Drink  ye  all  of  it. 

"2.  That  it  was  so  observed  formerly  in  the  entire  Church 
by  the  Holy  Fathers  and  Bishops,  for  more  than  a  thousand 
years. 

"3.  It  is  not  known  when,  nor  by  whom,  the  species  of  the 
wine  was  abolished — not  indeed  in  the  Canons. 

"4.  The  Emperor  should  consider  that  a  divine  command 
is  not  abrogated  by  the  reasons  addticed  and  by  the  writings, 
inappropriately  cited  by  the  opponents. 

"5.  We  cannot  consent  that  the  species  of  the  wine  should 
be  prohibited. 

"6.  Nothing  in  the  divine  appointments  is  to  be  rashly 
changed,  nor  are  we  to  consent  to  changes. 

"7.  Much  less  can  we  approve  and  praise  it  when  the  oppo- 
nents say  that  it  is  an  abuse  for  the  laity  to  receive  both  species. 
For  an  institution  of  C'hrist  cannot  be  called  an  abuse. 

"8.  In  regard  to  these  things  Christ  has  threatened.  Matt.  5, 
that  whosoever  shall  break  one  of  the  least  of  the  command- 
ments shall  be  least." 

Of  the  Marriage  of  the  Priests. 

"1.  This  subject  does  not  call  for  a  long  discussion,  for  it 
is  clear. 

"2.  The  contrary  is  an  impious  opinion,  because  it  is  a 
doctrine  of  devils. 

"3.     It  is  contrary  to  the  command  of  God. 

''4.     It  is  contrary  to  the  creation  of  God. 

"5.     It  is  contrary  to  the  order  of  God. 


164  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONTINUED. 

'%.     It  is  an  impossible  vow. 

"7.  But  a  vow  cannot  take  away  the  command,  creation  and 
order  of  God. 

"8.  Only  let  the  Emperor  consider  how  great  is  the  scandal 
everywhere. 

"9.  The  opponents  do  well  to  laud  chastity,  but  why  do  they 
not  practice  that  which  they  praise?  Also  there  is  chastity  in 
Marriage,  as  Paphnutius  says. 

"10.  Inasmuch  as  they  declare  that  chastity  is  possible, 
why  do  they  not  also  exhibit  it  ?  The  lives  of  the  celibate  priests 
are  known. 

"11.  Even  though  chastity  were  possible,  nevertheless  mar- 
riage is  not  to  be  prohibited  by  law.  For  it  lays  a  snare  for 
consciences,  and  is  a  doctrine  of  demons,  and  has  given  power 
to  the  Pope  to  load  the  priests  with  this  burden. 

"12.  Ambrose  has  said  :  Chastity  can  be  only  recommended ; 
it  cannot  be  enjoined.  It  is  a  matter  of  wish  rather  than  of 
command. 

"13.  Moreover,  it  is  a  divine  command:  Let  each  one  have 
his  own  wife.  Let  a  Bishop  be  the  husband  of  one  wife.  Not 
all  can  receive  this  word :  It  is  not  good  for  a  man  to  be 
alone.  But  a  divine  command  cannot  be  removed  by  a  human 
prohibition,  for  the  obligation  of  the  contracting  parties  is  a 
matter  of  the  divine  law. 

"14.  They  that  prohibit  marriage  become  guilty,  and  are 
partakers  of  all  the  scandals  and  fornications. 

"15.  They  also  become  participants  and  guilty  of  the  shed- 
ding of  all  the  blood  of  all  who  are  killed  on  this  account. 

' '  16.  It  would  also  be  a  great  cruelty  to  deprive  the  Church 
of  its  priests  by  prohibiting  or  separating  them  from  pious 
w'ives.  For  where  could  we  get  suitable  celibates  for  all  the 
parishes  ? 

"17.  For  many  centuries  in  the  primitive  Church,  even  upon 
the  confession  of  the  opponents,  the  marriage  of  priests  and 
Bishops  was  practiced. 

•    "18.     Even  to-day  in  the  Eastern  Church  there  are  married 
priests. ' '  * 

••  The  Joint  Committee  of  Fourteen  finished  its  work  August 
22d.t  The  same  day  the  Lutheran  part  of  the  Committee  made 
a  verbal  report  at  the  lodging  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.J     The 

*  Coelestin,  III.,  48,  49.     f  Coelestin,  III.,  496.      t  C.  E.  II.,  300,  301. 


EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION.— CONTINUED.  165 

Catholic  part  of  the  Committee  reported  to  the  Catholic  Estates 
at  the  Fafhaus*  Seckendorf  says,  justlv,  that  neither  paa'ty 
expressed  itself  with  sufficient  accuracy  and  perspicuity.  Each 
party  concealed  rather  than  revealed  its  true  sentiment,  and  each 
party  accused  the  other  of  the  lack  of  candor.  Yet  there  Avere 
still  unreduced  differences,  but  the  concessions  made  by  the 
Lutherans  were  far-reaching, — ''concessions,  which,  in  fact,  in^ 
volved  the  restoration  of  the  externals  of  the  Church  to  an 
extent  such  as  was  no  longer  to  be  expected,  "f  Conse(iuently 
the  propositions  and  concessions  made  by  the  Lutherans  awoke 
strong  opposition  from  within  their  own  ranks. t 

But  with  these  reports  and  statements  the  negotiations  of  the 
Committee  terminated.  ''Doctrine,"  as  Plitt  says,  "had  been 
wholly  cast  aside,"  and  the  discussions  had  been  narrowed  to 
two  or  three  articles,  about  which  there  was  the  chief  conten- 
tion, namely,  the  sacrament  and  the  marriage  of  the  priests. 
But  on  these  points  neither  party  Avould  yield  to  the  other. 
With  the  Catholics  it  was  a  matter  of  tradition  and  of  the 
Church's  teaching.  With  the  Lutherans  it  was  a  matter  of  con- 
science and  of  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures.  Thus  the  Com- 
mittee of  Fourteen  failed  to  agree  on  a  basis  of  reconciliation. 

The  learned  and  judicious  Rotermund  has  closed  his  account 
of  the  transactions  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen  with  the  fol- 
lowing observations:  "Both  formerly  and  in  recent  times  the 
two  parties  engaged  in  efforts  to  restore  harmony  have  been 
bitterly  reproached.  The  Roman  Catholics  have  been  accused 
of  cunningly  and  deceitfully  circumventing  the  Evangelicals 
by  trying  to  make  the  impression  of  a  reformation  in  doctrine, 
in  order  to  lead  them  again  under  the  domination  of  the  Church. 
It  must  indeed  be  conceded  that  they  used  cunning  artifices  for 
the  purpose  of  recovering  their  opponents  from  so  wide  an 
estrangement.  But  it  certainly  could  not  have  been  their  pur- 
pose to  deceive  them.  Melanchthon  and  the  two  others  of  his 
party  must  have  been  extraordinarily  short-sighted,  not  to  have 
observed  in  the  beginning  of  the  colloquy,  that  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics were  not  willing  to  change  anything  in  the  essentials  of 
their  faith  and  church  polity.  Never  did  the  hope  of  peace 
between  the  Protestants  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  seem 
so  near  its  realization  as  in  the  negotiations  of  the  two  com- 

*  Schirrmacher,  p.  524;  Cochlaeus,  Historia,  p.  406. 

t  Von  Eanke,  Geschichte,  III.,  197. 

t  See  Moller-Kaweraii  KirchengescMcMe,  dritte  Aiifl.,  III.,  p.  113. 


166  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION.  —  CONTINUED. 

mittees  from  the  16th  to  the  20th  of  August,  and  never  would 
a  peace  have  brought  with  it  such  pernicious  consequences  for 
the  Protestants,  as  this  one,  had  it  been  effected.  If  the  ruling 
of  a  higher  power  be  not  recognized  here,  then  it  remains  inex- 
plicable, that  a  better  use  was  not  made  of  the  yielding  temper 
of  the  Protestants.  Both  parties  were  agreed  on  the  first  ten, 
the  thirteenth,  the  sixteenth  to  the  nineteenth  articles  of  the 
Confession.  Fortunately,  the  negotiations  with  reference  to  the 
Lord's  Supper  came  to  naught."  * 

But  in  justice  to  jNIelanchthon,  and  also  as  an  important  side- 
light on  this  entire  section  of  Lutheran  confessional  history,  we 
add  here  a  report  written  by  ]\Ielanchthon,  August  21st,  on  the 
articles  which  had  not  been  settled  by  the  Committee : 

"1.  That  faith  makes  righteous  before  God,  not  our  work  or 
service  which  goes  before  or  follows ;  but  for  the  sake  of  Christ, 
if  we  believe  that  God  for  the  sake  of  Christ  is  gracious  to  us. 

"2.  That  we  ought  to  do  good  works,  though  we  do  not 
thereby  merit  grace  and  righteousness  before  God;  but  faith  ac- 
quires grace  not  on  account  of  our  work. 

"3.  That  in  Confession  it  is  not  necessary  to  enumerate 
sins. 

"4.  That  though  sorrow  and  repentance  must  and  ought  to 
exist,  yet  sins  are  not  forgiven  on  account  of  sorrow,  but  through 
faith,  if  we  trust  the  absolution,  or  the  Gospel,  that  for  Christ's 
sake  our  sins  are  forgiven.  Therefore,  repentance  must  be  fol- 
lowed by  faith,  which  comforts  the  conscience,  and  believes  that 
sins  are  forgiven  for  the  sake  of  Christ. 

"5.  That  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  remission  of  penalty  to 
add  satisfaction  in  repentance. 

"6.  That  the  sacraments  do  not  justify  without  faith,  ex 
opere  operato. 

"7.  That  for  the  true  unity  of  the  Church  and  of  the  faith 
uniformity  of  human  institutions  is  not  necessary,  but  agree- 
ment in  Articles  of  Faith  and  in  the  use  of  the  sacraments. 

"8.  That  worship  instituted  by  men,  without  the  command 
and  Word  of  God,  for  the  purpose  of  meriting  grace,  are  con- 
trary to  the  Gospel,  and  obscure  the  merit  of  Christ. 

"9.  That  cloister-vows  and  the  monastic  life,  instituted  as 
the  worship  of  God  for  the  purpose  of  meriting  grace,  are  con- 
trary to  the  Gospel. 

' '  10.  That  human  ordinances,  which  can  be  held  without  sin, 
*  Geschichte,  p.  131. 


EFFORTS    AT    RP^CONCILIATION. — CONTINUED.  167 

and  promote  good  order  in  the  Church,  should  be  observed  out 
of  love  to  avoid  offence.  That  we  should  understand  that  such 
works  are  not  a  necessary  worship  of  God.  Also  that  the  Bishops 
have  no  right  to  oppress  consciences  with  such  traditions.  There- 
fore it  is  not  a  sin  if  such  traditions  be  dropped  without  giving 
offence. 

"11.  The  invocation  of  the  saints  is  an  uncertain  and  dan- 
gerous thing.  It  obscures  the  office  of  Christ  whom  the 
Scriptures  hold  up  to  us  as  Mediator  and  Redeemer. 

"12.  That  those  who  forbid  both  forms  act  contrary  to  the 
institution  of  Christ  and  the   Scriptures. 

"13.  That  those  who  forbid  marriage  act  contrary  to  the 
command  of  God,  which  commands  to  flee  unchastity,  and  that 
each  should  have  his  own  wife. 

"14.  That  the  Mass  is  not  a  work  which  merits  grace  ex 
opere  operato,  or  even  merits  the  application  of  grace  to  others. 
But  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  order  that 
grace  may  be  offered  to  us  who  receive  it  by  faith,  not  ex  opere 
operato."  * 

He  then  tells  us  that  these  doctrines  are  held  by  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  and  his  allies  as  right  and  Christian,  and  that  if 
there  be  other  controverted  doctrines,  these  should  be  referred 
to  a  council,  but  meanwhile  one  party  should  not  be  assaulted 
by  the  other. 

There  can  be  scarcely  a  doubt  that  this  Opinion  was  written 
by  command  of  the  Elector.  One  cannot  but  wish  that  some  of 
the  steadfastness  which  it  exhibits  had  been  injected  into  the 
Confession  as  the  same  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor. 

Another  side-light  on  these  peace  negotiations  is  furnished 
by  Melanchthon  's  letter  to  Luther,  written  August  22d : 

"Yesterday  we  ended  the  Conference,  or  rather  the  Strife, 
w^hich  was  conducted  in  the  presence  of  Judges.  At  the  begin- 
ning the  judges  M^ere  Henry  of  Brunswick,  the  Bishop  of  Augs- 
burg, Eck,  Cochlaeiis.  Later  Duke  George  took  the  place  of 
Henry  of  Brunswick.  For  Brunswick  was  required  to  follow 
the  Macedonian  (Philip  of  Hesse),  who,  they  fear,  is  mustering 
an  army.  In  regard  to  the  doctrines,  things  are  about  as  follows : 
Eck  found  fault  about  the  word  Sola,  when  we  say  that  men  are 
justified  hy  faith.  Yet  he  did  not  condemn  it,  but  said  that  the 
unsophisticated  are  offended.  I  forced  him  to  confess  that  the 
righteousness  of  faith  is  correctly  taught  by  us.     Nevertheless, 

*C.  R.  II.,  297-9. 


168  EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATIOX. CONTINUED. 

he  wanted  us  to  Avrite  that  we  are  justified  hij  grace  and  faith. 
I  did  not  object,  but  that  fool  does  not  know  the  meaning  of 
the  word  grace.  There  was  another  dispute  about  the  remission 
of  penalty  and  about  satisfactions.  There  was  a  third  about 
merits.  On  these  two  subjects  there  Avas  no  agreement.  Though 
he  did  not  assign  much  to  merit,  we  did  not  accept  that  even. 
Then  we  took  up  the  subject  of  both  species.  Here  he  tried  hard 
to  show  that  it  is  not  commanded  to  take  both  species.  We 
regarded  it  as  absolutely  indifferent  whether  we  take  one  or 
both.  And  if  Ave  should  teach  this,  he  AAOuld  cheerfully  alloAV 
us  both  species.  I  could  not  accept  this,  and  yet  I  excused 
those  who  hitherto  by  mistake  have  taken  one,  for  they  clamored 
that  we  are  condemning  the  entire  Church.  What  think  you? 
The  appointment  of  Christ  refers  to  the  laity  and  to  the  clergy. 
Hence,  when  we  are  forced  to  use  the  sacrament,  minds  ought 
to  retain  the  form  of  the  entire  sacrament.  If  you  think  thus, 
write  it  unequivocally.  In  regard  to  the  ]Mass.  Voaa-s,  ^Marriage, 
there  was  no  dispute.  Only  some  propositions  Avere  made. 
These  we  did  not  accept.  I  cannot  divine  Avhat  the  end  will  be. 
For  although  our  opponents  also  need  peace,  yet  some  seem  not 
to  consider  hoAv  great  will  be  the  danger  if  the  matter  should 
result  in  AA'ar.  We  propose  very  moderate  conditions.  We 
render  obedience  and  jurisdiction  to  the  Bishops,  and  Ave  promise 
to  restore  the  common  ceremonies.  What  Aveight  this  Avill  have 
I  do  not  know.    You  will  pray  Christ  to  preserve  us. ' '  * 

This  letter  confirms  rather  than  contradicts  the  report  ren- 
dered by  the  Catholic  Committee.  It  shoAvs  that  large  conces- 
sions had  been  made  by  the  Lutherans,  and  that  the  distance 
between  the  tAvo  halves  of  the  Committee  is  not  very  great.  But 
the  letter  also  helps  to  confirm  the  impression,  made  at  every 
step  of  the  negotiations,  that  the  Catholic  party  regarded  no 
reconciliation  possible  that  stopped  short  of  a  complete  submis- 
sion on  the  part  of  their  opponents. 

3.  The  Emperor's  Diplomacy. 
But  while  the  Joint  Committee  was  disputing  over  the  Articles 
of  Faith,  the  Emperor  Charles  was  plying  the  arts  of  diplomacy. 
Through  the  Bishop  of  Mayence  and  through  Frederick  of 
the  Palatinate  and  others,  he  tried  to  get  George  of  Branden- 
burg and  the  Elector  of  Saxony  to  abandon  the  cause  of  the 
Reformation  on  which  they  had  embarked.     To  the  Elector  he 

*  C.  E.  II.,  299. 


EFFORTS    AT    EECONCILIATION. — CONTINUED.  169 

refused  formal  installation  over  his  own  dominions,  except  upon 
condition  that  he  would  first  return  to  favor  with  the  Roman 
Church.  He  declared  to  George  that,  unless  he  obeyed,  the 
title  of  his  nephew,  son  of  his  brother  Casimir,  should  be  taken 
from  him. 

And  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  was  approached  with  the  promise 
that  if  he  would  make  his  peace  with  the  Emperor,  Ulrieh,  Duke 
of  Wiirtemberg,  should  be  reinstated,  and  that  the  controversy 
which  he  had  with  the  Count  of  Nassau  should  be  settled  by  the 
intervention  of  the  Emperor.    But  nothing  was  effected  by  these 

diplomatic  efforts.* 

*  Schirrmacher,  p.  241. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THE    EFFORTS    AT   RECONCILIATION. CONCLUDED. 

The  failure  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen  to  agree  upon  a 
basis  of  reconciliation  did  not  deter  either  party  from  further 
efforts.  The  fact  that  only  two  or  three  matters,  and  those 
appertaining'  to  ceremonies,  and  not  reality  to  doctrines,  remained 
unsettled,  encouraged  the  so-called  Catholic  middle  party  to  try 
again.  They  thought  that  the  difficulty  was  connected  with  per- 
sons rather  than  with  the  subjects  at  issue.  Duke  George 
especially  was  regarded  as  the  stumbling-block.  Hence  it  was  re- 
solved by  the  Catholics  to  eliminate  him  from  the  negotiations. 
But  in  order  to  do  this  diplomatically,  some  of  the  Catholic 
Princes  importuned  the  Elector  of  Saxony  to  agree  to  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  committee  of  three  on  each  side  further  to  con- 
sider the  points  at  issue.  But  such  a  proposition  did  not  com- 
mend itself  to  some  of  the  Lutherans.  Some  looked  upon  it  as 
' '  vexatious  and  knavish, ' '  and  they  discussed  the  matter  in  three 
separate  meetings.  Finally  they  agreed  to  it,  but  with  the  dis- 
tinct understanding  that  nothing  more  was  to  be  conceded  to  the 
Catholics.* 

1.     The  ^Committee  of  Six. 

On  the  side  of  the  Catholics.  Bernhard  Hagen,  Chancellor  of 
the  Elector  of  Cologne;  Hieronymus  Vehus,  Chancellor  of 
Baden,  and  Dr.  John  Eck;  on  the  side  of  the  Lutherans,  Dr. 
Gregory  Briick,  Chancellor  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony ;  Dr.  Sebas- 
tian Heller,  Chancellor  of  Margrave  George  of  Brandenburg, 
and  Philip  Melanchthon :  were  chosen  to  constitute  a  Committee 
of  Six.f  The  Lutheran  three  were  instructed  to  confine  them- 
selves to  five  points :  The  Mass,  Communion  under  both  kinds, 
the  Marriage  of  Priests,  Monastic  Vows,  Episcopal  Power,  and 
to  make  no  additional  concessions,  and  to  ascertain  whether  the 
opposite  party  would  make  additional  concessions.! 

August  24th  the  Joint  Committee  of  Six  met  at  the  Rathaus. 

"  C.  R.  II.,  312;  Schirrmacher,  p.  242;  Spalatin,  p.  189;  Sleidan  (English 
Translation),  p.  132. 

t  Cochlaeiis,  Commentaria.  p.  212;  C.  R.  II.,  312;  Forstemann,  II.,  291; 
Coelestin,  III.,  60 ;  Gieseler,  IV.,  142,  143. 

I  Strassburg  Politis.  Corresp.,  p.  487. 

(170) 


THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. CONCLUDED.  171 

Immediately  the  Catholics  insisted  on  communion  in  one  kind, 
on  the  Mass  with  the  traditional  ceremonies,  and  with  both  canons, 
on  priestly  celibacy,  on  the  support  of  the  cloisters  with  the 
wonted  service  and  dress,  and  on  the  episcopal  government  of 
the  churches ;  in  a  few  words,  they  insisted  on  almost  everything 
that  was  distinctive  of  the  Roman  Catholic  system  of  doctrine 
and  practice.  But  the  Lutheran  Three  are  now  clearly  on  the 
alert,  and  place  themselves  much  more  in  an  attitude  of  defense 
than  they  had  done  when  acting  on  the  Committee  of  Four- 
teen. The  severe  but  just  condemnation  of  their  former  course, 
and  the  conditions  that  had  attended  their  appointment  on  this 
Committee,  had  not  only  tied  their  hands,  but  had  evidently 
quickened  their  Protestant  consciences  and  strengthened  their 
nerves.  They  do  not  now  seem  like  the  same  men.  Hence,  they 
reply  to  the  proposals  of  the  Catholics  in  a  more  positive  tone: 
They  cannot  permit  the  communion  under  one  kind,  except  in 
cases  of  necessity.  They  cannot  tolerate  Private  Masses,  since 
such  Masses  are  regarded  as  an  opus  operatum,  and  as  sacrifices 
for  the  living  and  the  dead.  They  reject  the  celibacy  of  the 
clergy,  because  it  is  a  human  invention,  and  marriage  is  an 
order  of  God.  They  will  abide  by  what  was  agreed  to  in  the 
Committee  of  Fourteen.  They  wish  to  refer  the  matter  of  episco- 
pal government  and  of  church  ceremonies  to  a  free  general 
council.*  But  during  this,  as  at  other  meetings,  the  Catholics 
indulged  in  "the  most  atrocious  threats,"  and  Melanchthon 
complains  of  the  utter  lack  of  courage  in  the  Lutheran  Princes.f 
And  in  this  criticism  of  the  Lutheran  Princes  Melanchthon  is 
abundantly  sustained  by  the  recorded  observations  of  other 
Lutherans  who  were  at  Augsburg  in  an  official  capacity.  Hence, 
others  rather  than  Melanchthon  are  to  blame  for  the  concessions 
that  were  made. 

Two  days  later,  Friday,  August  26th,  in  the  afternoon,  the 
Committee  of  Six  met  again  at  the  Rathaus.  But  the  Catholics 
proposed  nothing  essentially  new  as  a  means  of  reconciliation. 
The  Catholics  refused  to  remove  any  of  the  abuses,  since  they 
held  that  "their  usages  were  right  and  must  abide,  and  that  in 
some  things  they  would  only  have  patience  with  the  Lutherans." 
The  Lutherans  again  refuse  to  concur  in  the  proposals  which  had 
been  made,  "but  declare  that  should  other  Christian  proposals 

*Coelestin,  III.,  60  et  seqq.;  Forstemann,  11.,  290  et  seqq.;  C.  R.  II., 
312-314.  The  Proposals  of  the  Catholics  and  the  Reply  of  the  Lutherans  are 
given  by  Miiller,  Eistorie,  pp.  801  et  seqq..  taken  from  Brack's  Geschichte. 

t  C.  R.  II..  314. 


172  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION.  —  CONCLUDED. 

be  made,  such  as  would  bring  no  burden  upon  their  consciences, 
another  interview  would  not  be  declined."  In  subsequent  nego- 
tiations the  Catholics  reported  that  since  agreement  could  not  be 
effected  the  Emperor  was  disposed  to  order  a  council,  but  under 
the  condition  that  all  innovations,  both  in  doctrine  and  in  church 
usages,  should  be  discontinued  among  the  Protestants,  "and 
thus  the  common  Church  should  be  restored. ' '  * 

To  these  later  proposals  which,  we  repeat,  really  contain  noth- 
ing new,  the  Lutherans  reply  that,  inasmuch  as  through  the 
carelessness  and  neglect  of  the  Bishops,  false  and  seductive  doc- 
trines and  usages  have  been  introduced  into  the  churches,  as 
was  shown  in  the  Articles  of  the  Confession,  the  Princes  felt 
bound  before  God  and  their  own  consciences  to  make  a  Christian 
reformation,  as  justified  by  the  Scriptures  and  by  the  laws  of  the 
Pope  himself.  It  was  in  accordance  with  precedent  that  in  mat- 
ters of  faith  a  reformation  should  be  introduced.  They  promise 
that  they  will  lay  the  latest  proposals  of  the  Catholics  before 
their  Principals.  This  they  did,  and  on  Sunday,  August  28th, 
an  answer,  both  verbal  and  in  writing,  was  rendered.  The 
answer  is  a  state-paper,  rather  than  a  theological  argument.  It 
reviews  the  circumstances  that  attended  the  appointment  and 
negotiations  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen.  It  then  states  that 
the  Lutherans  had  done  all  that  they  could  do  to  make  peace, 
and  had  conceded  everything  that  could  be  conceded  with  a  good 
conscience  and  with  a  proper  regard  for  the  honor  of  God ;  thej' 
had  steadily  appealed  to  a  general  council,  that  the  Elector  and 
other  Orders,  notAvithstanding  the  opposition  of  some  of  their 
allies,  have  consented  to  the  appointment  of  the  Smaller  Com- 
mittee; that  the  Elector  and  Princes  are  not  willing  to  proceed 
further,  nor  will  they  accede  to  the  terms  proposed  by  the  Smaller 
Catholic  Committee,  since  this  is  not  more  favorably  inclined  to 
peace  than  was  the  Larger  Committee.  But,  should  more  suit- 
able terms  be  proposed  for  composing  the  difficulties,  and  for 
establishing  peace,  the  Lutherans  are  ready  to  respond.  The 
Catholics  know  the  causes  of  the  Abuses,  and  the  sources  of  the 
doctrines  contained  in  the  Confession:  the  only  cure  for  the 
Abuses  in  the  Church  is  a  free  general  council:  the  Catholic 
Orders  should  insist  on  the  calling  of  such  a  council :  that  mean- 
while the  Protestant  Orders  will  do  all  in  their  power,  by  the 

*  For  all  the  facts  contained  in  this  paragraph,  see  Schirrmacher,  pp. 
243,  .528;  Forstemann,  IT.,  301;  C.  R.  II..  313;  J.  J.  Miiller,  Historie,  pp. 
817-820. 


THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECOXCILIATIOX. CONCLUDED.  173 

help  of  God,  to  promote  peace,  and  will  so  administer  their  affairs 
as  to  give  account  to  God  and  to  the  Emperor.* 

This  paper,  Avhich  in  all  probability  was  written  by  Chancellor  ' ' 
Briick,  is  firmer  and  more  decided  in  tone  than  any  Lutheran 
paper  that  had  preceded  it  during  the  negotiations  for  peace. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Lutheran  Three  had  been 
strengthened  and  stimulated  by  the  opposition  shown  to  the  con-  ^ 
cessions  made  by  the  Seven.  They  had  remembered  their  instruc- 
tions. They  probably  saw  the  danger  of  schism  in  their  own 
ranks.  The  Saxons  and  the  ]Margraviaus,  who  had  taken  the 
lead  in  these  peace  negotiations,  almost  to  the  exclusion  of  their 
allies  in  religion,  could  not  afford  further  to  risk  the  alienation 
of  the  Liineburgers,  the  Hessians  and  the  Evangelical  cities.  By 
some  means,  perhaps  through  the  clear-sighted  criticisms  of  their 
allies,  the  Committee  of  Three  had  come  to  see  that  the  Cath- 
olics were  ruled  by  the  principle  of  ecclesiastical  authority,  by 
tradition,  and  by  the  theology  of  the  ^liddle  Ages.f  They  had 
also  learned  finally  that  the  Catholics  would  not  concede  their 
appeal  to  a  general  council,  except  upon  the  condition  that  the 
Protestants,  both  in  doctrine  and  in  practice,  should  return  to 
harmonious  action  with  the  Catholic  Church,  that  is,  would  them-  ■ 
selves  again  become  Roman  Catholics. 

These  discoveries,  which  become  increasingly  manifest  in  the 
later  negotiations,  would  naturally  lead  the  Protestants  to  place 
more  emphasis  on  the  fundamental  principle  that  the  Word  of 
God  must  determine  and  shape  all  articles  of  faith  and  all  usages 
of  the  Church.  Thus  the  antitheses  of  the  two  systems,  of 
Catholicism  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  Lutheranism  on  the  other, 
rose  into  greater  prominence.  At  any  rate,  the  Lutherans  begin 
now  to  act  more  like  Lutherans.  A  reaction  has  manifestly  set 
in,  and  the  Answer  of  Aiigust  28th  marks  the  Ijeginning  of  the 
end  of  the  peace  negotiations.t     Henceforth  the  Saxons  and  the 

'  Brack's  Geschichte,  pp.  1'20  et  seqq. ;  Miillcr,  Historie,  pp.  820  et  seqq. ; 
Chytraeiis,  pp.  273  et  seqq.;  Forstemann,  II.,  306  et  seqq.  Latin  in  Coe- 
lestin.  III.,  59  et  .<;€qq. 

tSee  Eck's  letter  to  Melanchthon,  August  27th  (C.  R.  IT.,  31(i,  317),  in 
which  he  says  of  the  opus  operatuvi:  "1  am  so  certain  of  this  thing  that 
I  would  hot  hesitate  to  witness  to  it  by  my  death. ' ' 

t  The  Margrave  of  Brandenburg  is  still  greatly  frightened,  as  we  learn 
from  his  conversation  with  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  reported  by  the 
Niirnberg  legates,  August  29th.  He  believes  that  war  is  imminent,  and  that 
it  would  furnish  a  good  opportunity  for  the  Turks  to  carry  out  their  plans, 
according  to  the  old  proverb:  Duobus  litigantibus  tertius  ridebit.  C.  R.  II., 
319.  The  Niirnberg  commissioners  report:  "They,  the  Lutherans,  did  not 
think  that  it  was  obligatory  upon  them  to  betake  themselves  to  methods  and 
proposals  beyond  what  had  been  already  made."    C.  R.  II.,  p.  321. 


174  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. CONCLUDED. 

Margravians  take  a  firmer  stand.  Of  this  we  have  official  evi- 
dence: On  the  morning  of  August  29th,  the  Niirnberg  legates 
are  assured  by  Chancellor  Briick  that  "in  his  opinion  nothing 
additional  would  be  conceded,"  and  when,  on  the  morning  of 
the  same  day,  they  lay  the  Remonstrance  of  the  Niirnberg  Sen- 
ate before  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  they  receive  an  apologetic 
answer  about  the  concessions  that  had  been  made  in  the  Com- 
mittee of  Fourteen,  and  are  informed  that  additional  conces- 
sions will  not  be  made,  at  least  not  until  others  shall  have  been 
consulted. 

The  same  morning,  Melanchthon  and  others  were  commis- 
sioned to  write  a  reply  to  the  Catholic  Confutation  of  August 
3d.*  Three  days  later,  September  1st,  Melanchthon  wrote  to 
Luther:  "Day  before  yesterday  (August  30th),  our  conference 
was  closed.  We  refused  to  accept  the  conditions  in  regard  to  one 
part  of  the  Sacrament,  the  Canon.  Private  Masses,  and  Cel- 
ibacy. '  't 

3.     The  Remonstrances. 

We  have  already  referred  to  the  dissatisfaction  of  some  of 
the  Lutherans  with  the  concessions  made  by  the  Lutheran  Seven 
in  the  Committee  of  Fourteen.  This  had  reference  particularly 
to  the  Hessians,  the  Liineburgers  and  the  Niirnbergers.|  August 
23d,  the  Niirnberg  commissioners,  Kress  and  Bauragartner,  sent 
a  copy  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement  to  their  Senate. §  Imme- 
diately after  its  arrival,  it  was  laid  before  the  city  council  and  the 
theologians  of  Niirnberg,  and  on  the  26th,  a  "Judicium  et  C en- 
sura"  was  dispatched  to  Augsburg,  with  instructions  that  it  be 
laid  before  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  the  Margrave  of  Branden- 
burg. |I  In  the  letter  of  instructions  the  Niirnbergers  express 
their  displeasure  that  so  much  had  been  done  behind  their  backs, 
and  behind  the  backs  of  other  allies  of  the  Lutheran  cause.  They 
dread  the  displeasure  of  the  Princes,  but  they  must  be  true  to 
Cod,  to  their  own  consciences  and  to  their  own  souls.  They  say 
that  they  can  by  no  means  approve  the  concessions  that  have 
been  made.     The  "Judicium  et  Censura"  is  as  follows: 

"The  Senate  of  Niirnberg  has,  so  far  as  the  shortness  of  the 
time  would  permit,  carefully  read  and  considered  the  document 

*  C.  R.  IT.,  3.51;  Schirrmacher,  p.  530;  Plitt,  Apologie  der  Augustana, 
p.  87. 

t  C.  E.  II.,  336. 

t  Schirrmacher,  p.  243. 

§  C.  R.  IT.,  301. 

\\  Mitteilunfft'ii  des  Vcreins  fiir  Geschichte  der  Stadt  Niirnherq.  Viertes 
Heft,  p.  3(1. 


THE  EFFOKTS  AT  RECONCILIATION. CONCLUDED.       175 

lately  put  forth  at  Augsburg  by  eonnnittees  appointed  by  the 
papal  party,  and  has  had  the  same  considered  by  its  theologians. 
We  find  that  the  document  contains  three  classes  of  articles : 

"First,  those  on  which  the  Committee  agreed,  and  which  have 
not  hitherto  been  the  subject  of  controversy.    These  we  now  pass 

by. 

"Secondly,  those  articles  which  have  been  hitherto  the  subjects 
of  controversy,  and  have  not  yet  been  agreed  upon.  In  regard  to 
these  it  is  right.  Christian  and  proper,  that  those  things  should  be 
firmly  maintained  which  ours  have  publicly  preached,  and  which 
they  have  set  forth  in  the  Confession  as  true  and  Christian. 

"Thirdly,  those  articles,  which  in  part  are  matters  of  doubt, 
and  in  part  subjects  of  controversy. 

"In  regard  to  the  controverted  articles,  or  as  quite  recently 
they  have  been  called,  the  doubtful  articles,  the  Senate  and  its 
theologians,  and  beyond  doubt  other  Christian  people,  are  of  the 
opinion  that  in  that  document  much  has  been  yielded,  granted 
and  conceded  to  the  Papists,  which  either  wounds  the  conscience, 
and  cannot  be  sustained  by  Scripture,  or  which  will  bring  evil 
and  scandal  upon  those  who  have  hitherto  preferred  Christ  and 
his  Gospel.  Some  of  these  articles  and  their  objectionable  features 
we  will  briefly  indicate : 

' '  First,  it  would  be  not  a  little  inconvenient  for  pious  rulers  to 
obligate  themselves  and  to  agree  to  allow  the  monks,  nuns,  and 
cloisters  to  remain  in  their  primitive  condition,  and  to  use  the 
ceremonies  that  have  been  in  vogue  among  them,  for  in  many 
places  it  would  follow  that  the  old  Patrocinia,  preaching,  impious 
Masses,  fraternities,  funeral  rites,  and  many  like  things  would 
be  restored  in  the  cloisters  and  would  allure  and  seduce  inno- 
cent people.  And  by  the  diversity  of  ceremonies,  such  confusion 
would  be  introduced,  that  among  the  common  people,  especially 
in  large  communities,  nothing  but  constant  sedition  could  be 
expected,  to  say  nothing  about  the  things  arising  from  the  same 
source,  that  would  be  silently  tolerated. 

"Secondly,  it  is  not  well,  and  it  will  in  no  small  degree  pro- 
mote error,  to  concede  to  the  Papists,  as  they  have  hitherto  taught, 
that  there  are  three  parts  in  repentance.  For  there  is  no  doubt 
that  by  Confession,  the  Papists  mean  auricular  confession! 
(Ohrenbeicht),  and  by  satisfaction,  the  satisfaction  of  works. 
Now,  let  everyone  consider,  if  these  tAvo  parts  be  conceded  to  them 
as  necessary  parts  of  repentance,  how  much  they  would  thereby 
gain;  and  let  everyone  consider  whether  the  Word  of  God  and 


176  THE   EFFORTS   AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED. 

the  Holy  Scripture  can  allow  this.  Or  should  the  matter  be 
glossed  and  explained  differently  from  what  the  Papists  under- 
stand it,  yet  it  will  never  be  understood  by  the  common  people 
otherwise  than  according  to  the  papal  sense. 

"Thirdly,  if  the  communion  is  to  be  administered  to  no  one 
who  has  not  previously  made  oral  confession,  then  the  way  will 
be  opened  for  scruples  and  errors.  But  it  would  be  perilous  to 
bind  the  communion  absolutely  to  confession,  and  to  bind  the 
people  to  confession.  What  would  this  be,  except  to  bind  the  con- 
science again  to  oral  confession,  to  which  no  one  should  be  again 
bound  by  compulsion  or  necessity?  This  would  also  be  to  restore 
the  papal  torments,  and  it  would  force  the  people  on  the  day 
of  communion  and  at  some  particular  time  to  confess  at  the 
whim  of  the  pastors. 

"Fourthly,  the  article  about  fasts,  the  eating  and  abstaining 
from  flesh,  is  perfectly  ridiculous  and  detrimental.  For  thus 
the  people  would  be  forced  against  their  will  again  to  observe 
quadragesimal  and  other  festival  days.  Thus,  Christian  liberty, 
under  the  guise  of  maintaining  peace  and  unity,  would  be 
destroyed.  Christian  liberty,  as  likewise  every  other  article  of 
faith,  we  ought  to  maintain,  as  Paul  commands.  Abandon  Chris- 
tian liberty,  and  institute  necessity,  and  the  Papists  will  have 
it  all  their  own  way. 

"Fifthly,  there  is  no  Scripture  to  be  found  anywhere  that 
teaches,  or  allows  us  to  infer,  that  deceased  saints,  or  the  angels 
of  heaven,  pray  to  God  for  us.  Also  there  is  no  mediator,  inter- 
cessor, or  high  priest  before  God,  as  all  Scripture  shows,  except 
Christ  alone.  What  use  is  there,  then,  what  advantage  do  all 
have,  from  conceding  and  yielding  this  article  to  the  Papists, 
which  they  have  tried  to  base  on  the  Scriptures,  but  of  which  the 
Scriptures  have  not  a  trace  ?  And  every  intelligent  person  knows 
well  what  abuses  have  followed  gradually  from  this  article. 

"Sixthly,  in  this  a  larger  jurisdiction  has  been  granted  and 
conceded  to  the  Bishops  than  they  themselves  have  hitherto  ever 
demanded  or  have  ever  had.  Should  this  article  be  established, 
then  no  more  subtle  and  direct  way  of  utterly  wiping  out  the 
Gospel  in  a  short  time  could  be  thought  of.  For  if,  as  heretofore, 
the  Bishops  should  have  full  power  over  the  priests ;  if  the  Bish- 
ops, by  virtue  of  their  episcopal  authority,  are  to  be  able,  unhin- 
dered, to  punish  delinquent  priests ;  if  the  pastors  and  priests  are 
to  be  presented  to  the  Bishops,  as  this  article  unqualifiedly  pro- 
poses, without  any  limitation  of  the  episcopal  power,  what  else 


THE  EFFORTS  AT  RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED.       177 

will  follow,  01-  what  is  to  be  expected,  except  that  the  Bishops 
will  never  permit  a  truly  Christian  pastor  to  be  presented? 
Or  should  they  allow  such  an  one  to  be  presented,  they  will  be 
forever  making  charges  against  him,  or  will  be  otherwise  inter- 
fering with  him,  so  that  he  cannot  rem'ain.  Or  what  pastor 
would  expose  himself  to  such  perils,  or  would  preach,  if  there 
be  no  appeal  to  the  rulers  for  protection  against  the  Bishops, 
and  if  he  had  nothing  but  death  and  ruin  to  expect  ?  How  could 
the  rulers  answer  before  God  and  their  own  consciences  for  their 
subjects?  But  if  the  preachers  should  be  thus  harassed,  arrested, 
persecuted,  expelled,  how  long  would  the  Gospel  and  the  Chris- 
tian religion  remain?  And  how  could  the  Papists  offer  a  more 
subtle  contrivance  to  the  Christian  Estates  for  deferring  the 
articles,  about  which  there  is  dispute,  to  a  future  council,  than  by 
having  them  accept  this  article  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bish- 
ops? For,  in  this  way,  they  have  hit  upon  a  method  and  plan 
by  which  they  can  quickly  overthrow  the  Gospel,  together  with 
the  preachers  and  pastors,  so  that  it  can  never  again  be  defended, 
according  to  law  and  reason,  against  the  Emperor,  the  Empire, 
and  the  allied  Estates. 

"Finally,  such  are  the  difficulties  and  objectionable  features 
arising  from  several  articles  and  from  several  passages  in  the 
document  submitted.  Should  this  document  be  accepted,  con- 
sciences will  be  wounded,  and  a  large  part  of  the  papal  abuses 
will  be  confirmed,  the  Gospel  will  be  held  in  contempt,  the 
Evangelical  Estates  will  be  regarded  as  apostates,  the  Scriptures 
will  be  neglected,  things  will  be  done  contrary  to  the  Scriptures 
in  many  ways,  and  one  evil  will  beget  another. ' '  * 

With  additional  words  and  arguments,  the  Niirnberg  Senate 
remonstrates  and  warns  against  the  concessions  that  had  been 
made,  and  further  points  out  the  evil  consequences  that  must 
result  from  a  reunion  on  such  a  basis.  In  a  word,  the  "Judicium 
et  Censura"  is  a  clear  and  pronounced  condemnation  of  the  Arti- 
cles of  Agreement  made  by  the  Committee  of  Fourteen.  The 
Evangelical  consciousness  of  the  Niirnbergers  has  been  fairly 
outraged.  Hence,  this  remonstrance,  which  is  one  of  the  noblest 
testimonies  of  that  age  of  noble  testimonies  to  the  truth.  Its 
effect  upon  the  Elector  and  the  Margrave  cannot  be  questioned. 

4.     Other  Remonstrances. 
1.     Dr.  Geryon  Seller,  of  Augsburg,  an  ardent  friend  of  the 

*  German  in  Chytraeus  (1577),  p.  173  et  seqq. ;  Latin  in  Coelestin,  HI., 
81  et  seqq.,  and  in  Chytraeus,  pp.  297  et  seqq. 
12 


178  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. CONCLUDED. 

Reformation,  hearing  of  the  concessions  that  had  been  made  by 
the  Protestant  Committee,  wrote  a  most  earnest  and  trenchant 
letter  to  Spalatin,  about  August  20th  or  21st.  We  can  give  only 
the  salient  points: 

(a)  In  the  proscription  of  marriage  to  the  priests  "the 
Evangelicals  have  not  considered  the  interest  of  Christ  and  his 
kingdom,  but  their  oun  interest." 

(b)  If  the  communion  is  to  be  received  under  one  species 
only,  "why  has  it  been  so  bitterly  contended  that  communion 
under  one  species  is  contrary  to  the  Gospel?"  "If  for  the  sake 
of  peace  one  species  is  to  be  conceded,  then  for  the  sake  of  peace 
neither  species  ought  to  be  taken." 

(c)  "Though  the  Mass  is  a  memorial  sacrifice,  yet  the  Canon 
would  have  to  be  tolerated,  and  the  words  oblation,  host,  sacri- 
fice would  have  to  be  understood  not  as  of  a  memorial. ' '  He 
insists  on  the  removal  of  the  Canon  of  the  Mass,  because  it 
introduces  a  mode  of  worship  that  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of 
God.  "Would  not  all  Lutherans  and  Evangelicals  cry  out  that 
those  things  have  now  been  brought  to  ruin  that  were  hitherto 
preached  by  the  Leaders?  Such  union  would  be  like  drawing 
a  cloud  over  the  sun.  You  say  this  nuist  be  endured  for  the  sake 
of  peace.  Paul  did  not  so  love  peace  as  to  circumcise  Titus  and 
Timothy.  He  circumcised  the  one  out  of  deference  to  the  weak, 
but  he  refused  to  circumcise  the  other  when  he  saw  that  it  would 
bring  prejudice  to  the  faith.  But  the  Papists  are  not  weak. 
Rather  are  they  blind.  Hence  they  are  to  be  allowed  to  go. 
But  if  concord  should  be  effected  on  these  conditions,  not  peace, 
but  the  greatest  commotion  and  many  perils  would  follow." 

By  such  and  similar  arguments  Dr.  Seller  opposes  the  course 
taken  by  the  Lutherans,  and  insists  that  "such  remedies  will  not 
heal  the  disease,  but  will  make  it  worse. ' '  * 

2.  Lazarus  Spengler,  Secretary  to  the  Niirnberg  Senate,  was 
one  of  the  noblest  spirits  of  the  age,  a  thorough  Protestant,  and 
one  of  Luther's  most  devoted  friends.  On  or  about  August  26th 
he  wrote  a  letter  to  Augsburg  that  is  full  of  warning  and  of 
expressions  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  concessions  made  by  the 
Protestant  portion  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen.  He  does  not 
propose  to  judge  the  Articles  from  the  standpoint  of  the  theo- 
logian; but  he  declares  that  he  "cannot  regard  them  as  harmless, 
as  safe  for  the  conscience,  and  without  injury  to  the  glory  of 
God."  It  is  especially  offensive  to  him  to  hear  it  said  in  the 
*  Forstemann,  II.,  286  et  seqq. 


THE   EFFORTS   AT   RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED.  179 

matter  of  the  Private  Masses.  "We  cannot  help  it."  He  answers 
thus :  ' '  There  is  a  difference  hetween  not  being  able  to  help 
a  thing  and  approving  it.  If  it  be  beyond  my  power  to  prevent 
a  thing  that  I  regard  as  wrong,  and  it  come  to  pass,  then  before 
God  and  my  conscience  I  am  innocent.  But  if  I  approve  a  thing 
that  is  wrong,  which,  as  one  in  authority,  I  might  hinder  or 
prevent,  or  not  allow,  with  what  kind  of  conscience  can  I  answer 
before  God,  before  my  subjects  and  before  the  whole  world?" 
He  was  most  indignant  that  in  such  grave  matters  neither 
Luther  nor  the  allies  of  the  Evangelical  cause  had  been  con- 
sulted. He  says:  "Everyone  must  confess  that  Dr.  Martin 
Luther  is  the  one  through  whom,  as  His  instrument,  God  Al- 
mighty has  preached  and  published  his  word  in  Germany,  and 
that  up  to  his  time  he  has  been  the  leader  and  standard-bearer 
in  this  valiant  transaction.  Now,  in  my  opinion,  it  is  wholly 
improper  to  allow  him,  the  originator  and  leader  in  those  mat- 
ters, the  most  learned  and  experienced  theologian  in  Germany, 
to  be  ignored,  and  that  these  articles  should  not  be  submitted  to 
him  before  they  are  delivered  and  approved.  Are  we  to  suppo.se 
that  LutheT  is  so  puerile  and  cowardly  that,  should  anything 
injurious  and  offensive  be  decided  on  behind  his  back,  he  would 
sit  still  and  say  nothing,  and  affect  that  Avhat  we  had  resolved 
on  pleased  him  ?     .     .     . 

' '  I  fear  this :  Because  Ave  regard  the  Princes  at  Augsburg  as 
our  champions  in  matters  of  faith,  and  have  looked  up  to  them 
and  have  entrusted  so  much  to  them,  God  may  in  this  way  show 
us  what  it  is  to  trust  more  to  men  than  to  Him.  I  do  not  suspect 
Philip  Melanchthon  of  having  done  anything  that  is  impious 
and  un-Christian.  because  I  have  hitherto  regarded  him,  and 
still  regard  him.  as  a  wise,  learned,  pious  and  honorable  man. 
Neither  shall  this  transaction  cause  me  to  suspect  him  of  having 
done  anything  so  entirely  reprehensible.  For  I  consider  that  he 
is  too  pious  knowingly  to  approve  a  thing  that  is  against  his 
conscience  and  contrary  to  the  Gospel.  But  consider  that 
Melanchthon  has  not  had  the  experience  of  Luther.  He  has 
not  yet  been  violently  attacked  as  Luther  has  been.  He  is  too 
unsophisticated  for  those  cunning,  unscrupulous  court-knaves. 
He  has  also  not  yet  learned  the  devil  as  is  necessary  in  dealing 
with  such  people.  It  may  be  that  in  cases  where  the  funda- 
mentals are  preserved,  his  love  of  temporal  peace  would  lead 
him  to  yield  and  to  consent,  where  Luther,  or  another,  would 

do  otherwise. ' '  * 

*  Pressel'B  Lazarus  Spengler,  p.  72. 


180  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION.  —  CONCLUDED. 

3.  The  Liineburgers,  the  Hessians  and  the  legates  of  the 
Evangelical  cities  were,  as  we  have  already  indicated,  violently 
hostile  to  the  concessions  that  had  been  made  by  the  Lutheran 
Seven,  and  especially  were  they  displeased  with  the  agreement 
to  restore  the  full  authority  of  the  Bishops.  We  do  not,  indeed, 
have  any  written  protest  or  remonstrance  from  the  parties 
named  above,  but  we  have  contemporaneous  accounts  that  report 
their  "great  displeasure.''  and  the  earnest  contentions  they  had 
with  the  Saxons,  and  their  expressed  unwillingness  that  anything 
more  should  be  conceded.* 

Melanchthon  himself  tells  us  that  one  of  the  Niirnberg  legates, 
Baumgartner,  had  written  him  that  had  he  (Melanchthon)  been 
hired  by  the  Roman  Pope,  he  could  not  have  undertaken  a  better 
method  of  reinstating  the  papal  domination  than  that  which  had 
been  proposed.f  And  John  Brentz  reports  that  the  populace 
actually  charged  that  the  Lutheran  portion  of  the  Committee 
had  been  corrupted  by  papal  gold,  while  those  who  were  better 
disposed  called  the  measures  proposed  "impious."  and  accused 
the  Lutheran  Seven  with  defection  because  they  restored  the 
episcopal  jurisdiction.! 

The  whole  situation  is  described  by  Hieronymus  Baumgartner, 
of  Niirnberg,  in  a  private  letter  to  Lazarus  Spengler:  "Dear 
Mr.  Secretary :  I  cannot  refrain  from  informing  you  confi- 
dentially how  I  regard  the  transactions  of  the  Diet,  in  so  far  as 
they  have  reference  to  the  faith. 

"First.  You  know  from  what  has  transpired  how  our  party 
has  been  already  solicited  and  urged,  now  by  one  devil  and  now 
by  another,  who  clothe  themselves  in  pleasing  forms,  yea,  at 
times  appear  and  act  as  angels  of  light.  The  opposite  party  has 
not  indeed  accomplished  its  purpose,  and  the  proposals  made  by 
ours  have  not  been  accepted,  yet  we  find  that  the  present  inten- 
tion is  to  report  these  proposals  in  the  Recess  as  approved.  And 
although  this  has  not  yet  occurred,  yet  they  do  nothing  in  vain, 
but  are  always  wringing  some  concessions  from  us.  These  con- 
cessions they  hold  on  to,  and  will  use  them  when  our  distress  is 
the  greatest.  But  God,  by  special  grace,  has  appointed  that  the 
Confession  has  been  delivered;  otherwise  our  theologians  would 
make  a  very  different  confession,  as  they  would  gladly  do,  if  we 
would  follow  them,  though  they  do  not  agree  with  each  other. 

*  See  letter  of  Bernhard  Besserer,  of  Ulm,  in  Kolde  's  Analecta  Lutherana, 
p.  148;  C.  E.  II.,  313;  Schirrmacher,  pp.  242,  243;  Coelestin,  III.,  58&. 
t  C.  R.  IT.,  336. 
t  C.  R.  TI.,  337,  338. 


THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED.  181 

Philip  has  become  more  childish  than  a  child.  Brentz  is  not  only 
destitute  of  tact,  but  is  coarse  and  rude.  Haller  is  full  of  fear. 
These  three  misled  the  pious  Margrave,  and  made  him  pusillani- 
mous. They  persuade  him  to  do  what  they  wish,  though  I 
observe  that  he  wants  to  do  right.  The  pious  Vogler  must  have 
it  said  of  him  in  his  absence :  If  he  were  yet  here  so  much  that 
is  good  and  pacific  could  not  have  been  accomplished.  In  these 
negotiations  the  Elector  has  no  one  more  sagacious  than  Dr. 
Briick.  But  he  has  been  so  influenced  that  now  even  he  acts 
with  hesitation,  because  he  has  no  one  to  stand  by  him.  For  the 
other  Saxon  theologians  dare  not  say  a  word  publicly  against 
Philip,  or  he  is  aroused,  and  replies,  as  lately  he  did  to  the 
Chancellor  of  Liineburg:  If  anybody  dares  to  say  that  the  pro- 
posals made  are  not  Christian  he  lies  like  a  villain.  "Whereupon 
he  was  answered:  If  anyone  says  the  contrary,  etc.  Besides, 
those  who  act  in  a  courageous  and  Christian  manner -are  un- 
ceasingly slandered  in  every  way,  as  we  were  witnesses  in  regard 
to  the  Hessians,  who  in  these  matters  have  conducted  themselves 
most  uprightly  and  honorably. 

' '  In  a  word :  So  soon  as  we  reject  some  harsh  and  ungracious 
decision  of  the  Emperor,  they  try  so  to  entangle  us  as  to  have 
us  give  up  the  favor  of  God  without  getting  that  of  the  Emperor. 
It  has  continued  to  be  the  case  that  whenever  the  Princes  are 
together,  someone  comes  to  the  Elector  and  tells  him  what  he 
honestly  and  sincerely  thinks  of  matters,  etc.,  and  says  that  if 
some  concessions  be  made  in  this  or  that  part,  etc.,  matters  can 
be  mended.  Then  comes  Philip  with  his  articles  and  explana- 
tions. Meanwhile  these  are  reported  to  the  Margrave  by  Heller 
and  Brentz.  If  we  refuse  the  broth  they  have  concocted,  their 
theologians  run  round  and'say  that  we  will  not  allow  peace  (as 
though  peace  could  be  made  by  bur  concessions),  and  wish  to 
act  in  concert  with  the  Landgrave,  whom  they  have  outrageously 
slandered. "  * 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  picture  is  painted  in  striking 
colors  and  is  somewhat  overdra\^^l ;  but  that  in  its  main  'features 
it  is  true  to  the  life,  is  made  sufficiently  evident  by  numerous 
letters  and  reports  written  by  other  hands.  Baumgartner,  v,ho 
was  one  of  Niirnberg's  legates  to  the  Diet,  was  too  intelligent 
and  experienced  a  man  not  to  be  able  to  comprehend  the  situa- 
tion, and  too  honorable  to  wish  to  misrepresent  it,  though  the 
intensity  of  his  convictions  may  have  led  him  into  slight  hyper- 
*  C.  E.  .II.,  pp.  363,  364. 


182  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED. 

bole.  At  any  rate,  the  situation  was  a  most  distressing  one.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  the  feet  of  the  Saxons  and  the  ^largravians 
had  slipped  back  almost  into  the  ways  of  Rome.  Neither  can  it 
be  denied  that  it  is  due  preeminently  to  the  Xiirnberg,  Liineburg 
and  He.ssian  laymen  that  the  reactionary  movement  set  in, 
which,  in  its  consummation,  saved  the  day  at  Augsburg.  For 
these  laymen,  as  official  and  private  documents  demonstrate,  not 
only  resisted  the  making  of  further  concessions,  but  criticised 
and  condemned  those  that  had  been  made  in  the  Committee  of 
Fourteen.  Even  Melanchthon  himself  has  conceded  as  much. 
In  a  letter  to  Luther,  written  September  4th,  he  says:  "Our 
allies  are  manifestly  playing  the  Elbe.  Hence  I  am  strengthened 
in  the  conviction  that  we  ought  to  make  peace.  The  Niirnberg 
legates  and  the  Hessians  do  not  keep  within  bounds,  and  the 
Liineburgers  agree  with  them.  Ours  think  that  no  opportimity 
of  making  peace,  provided  it  be  honorably  made,  ought  to  be 
lost."* 

The  general  effect  of  such  protests,  remonstrances  and  criti- 
cisms, as  we  have  reproduced  in  the  preceding  pages,  upon  the 
Saxons  and  the  Margravians,  was  at  once  to  arrest  progress  in 
the  way  of  concessions  and  to  turn  their  faces  to  the  surer, 
foundation  which  had  been  established  in  the  Confession. 
Hence  we  find  that  the  Lutheran  Three  in  the  Joint  Committee 
of  Six  were  far  more  steadfast  than  were  the  Lutheran  Seven, 
although  the  Three  had  been  a  part  of  the  Seven. 

5.  The  Climax. 
Copies  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement,  proposed  by  the  two 
halves  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen,  were  promptly  sent  to 
Luther  by  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  with  the  request  that  he  render 
an  opinion  on  them.f  Melanchthon  wrote  to  Luther,  August 
22d,  and  gave  him  the  chief  points  in  the  negotiations.!  Luther 
replied  August  26th.  His  letter  to  the  Elector  is  a  masterful 
expose  of  the  poison,  deceit  and  danger  that  lie  concealed  in  the 
aforesaid  Articles.  As  this  letter  shows  how  clearly  Luther  com- 
prehended the  situation  at  Augsburg,  and  how  firmly  he  main- 
tained his  position  against  the  chief  corruptions  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  and  as  it  is  one  of  the  most  important  and 
effective  productions  of  his  pen,  vce  give  it  in  full : 

"Grace  and  peace  in  Christ,  Illustrious  High-born  Prince, 
Most  Gracious  Elector  and  Lord  : 

*  C.  R.  II.,  350.  t  Coelestin,  III.,  52a.  %('.  R.  II.,  299. 


THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED.  183 

"I  have  received  your  letter,  together  with  copies  from  both 
parts  of  the  Committee.  Now,  inasmuch  as  Your  Grace  desires 
my  opinion  on  the  same,  I  will  herewith  obediently  render  it. 

"The  conditions  and  methods  proposed  by  them,  and  accepted 
by  ours,  are  by  no  means  to  be  tolerated ;  and  I  am  supremely 
astonished  that  such  things  should  have  been  proposed.  As 
regards  the  Articles  from  our  side,  this  is  my  judgment :  When 
our  opponents  desire  us  to  teach  that  one  form  of  the  Sacra- 
ment is  right,  and  that  it  shall  not  l)e  enjoined,  but  left  free  to 
use  one  or  both  forms.  Your  Grace  knows  very  well  that  it  ia 
our  chief  contention  that  nothing  must  be  taught,  or  done,  that 
is  not  clearly  in  accord  with  God 's  Word ;  lest,  as  Paul  says,  we 
run  in  vain  and  beat  the  air.  We  have  trouble  enough,  even  when 
we  go  according  to  and  abide  by  the  sure  Word.  It  is  certain 
that  the  doctrine  about  one  form  of  the  Sacrament '  is  a  pure 
human  invention,  and  is  not  at  all  supported  by  the  Word  of 
God.  But,  on  the  contraiy,  the  use  of  both  forms  is  established 
by  the  clear  words  of  God.  Hence,  we  cannot  either  approve  or 
teach  that  the  use  of  one  form  is  right.  For  there  stands  Christ, 
Matt.  15:  9:  Ye  serve  me  with  the  doctrines  of  men. 

"Besides,  in  using  only  one  form,  we  treat  the  words  of  Christ 
with  indifference,  where  he  so  heartily  and  earnestly  enjoins,  Do 
this  in  remembrance  of  me.  Even  they  themselves  do  not  believe 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference.  For,  on  account  of  this,  they 
have  burned,  hounded,  persecuted  many,  and  have  condemned 
it  as  a  great  heresy.  Hence,  not  only  on  God's  account,  and  our 
own,  but  for  their  sake,  we  must  not  allow  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  indifference.  We  must  regard  them  as  murderers  and  scoun- 
drels, since,  forsooth,  they  have  persecuted  and  condemned  an 
indifferent  thing  as  a  heresy.  They  themselves  do  not  believe 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference.  Much  less  can  we  so  teach.  Let 
them  recall  and  bring  back  all  they  have  persecuted  for  this 
cause.  It  is  a  very  fine  complaint  they  make,  viz.,  that  they  can- 
not hold  the  people  where  we  do  not  preach  that  they  are  right. 
I  am  delighted  to  hear  such  a  wise  reason.  It  is  as  though  God 
must  not  allow  his  Word  to  be  preached  in  order  that  they  may 
hold  their  people  and  remain  tyrants. 

' '  Of  Private  Masses,  I  say  the  same  :  They  are  the  invention  of 
men,  are  without  support  from  God's  Word,  and  are  an  abuse. 
Our  opponents  do  not  strive  to  compel  us  to  restore  these,  but 
only  not  to  forbid  them.  We  do  not  prevent  such,  but  cannot 
approve  them.   If  one  human  invention  be  admitted,  then  another 


184  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED. 

must  be  admitted.  That  is  the  way  it  goes.  If  we  allow  the  Pri- 
vate Masses,  then  forthwith  we  must  drop  the  Gospel  and  accept 
a  human  invention ;  for  there  is  no  reason  why  one  and  not  all 
human  inventions  should  be  received.  To  forbid  and  to  con- 
demn all  is  to  forbid  and  condemn  one. 

' '  They  pretend  that  it  is  not  the  function  of  rulers  to  prevent 
such  things.  They  know  very  well  that  the  office  of  ruling  and 
the  office  of  the  ministry  are  not  one  and  the  same,  and  that 
Princes  have  nothing  to  do  with  such  things.  But  the  question 
is  whether  a  Prince,  as  a  Christian,  will  approve  this,  and  not 
whether  he  act  as  a  Prince.  Whether  a  Prince  should  preach,  • 
and  whether  he  should  approve  preaching,  are  different  matters. 
It  is  not  the  Prince,  but  the  Scripture,  that  disapproves  of 
Private  Masses.  It  is  in  the  power  of  the  Prince  to  say  whether 
he  will  allow  the  Scriptures  or  not.  No  man  on  earth  can  force 
him  to  do  it. 

"Should  the  Canon  be  allowed  with  a  proper  interpretation? 
Yes,  provided  it  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  safe  expounders.  Long 
ago,  I  might  have  undertaken  to  explain  the  religion  of  the 
Turks,  and  to  reduce  all  kinds  of  unbelief  to  the  Christian  faith. 
It  is  well  known  that  they  have  sold  Masses  as  a  sacrifice  and  a 
work.  Now  they  woidd  explain  them.  In  a  word,  it  is  human 
invention,  such  as  cannot  be  tolerated  in  the  affairs  of  God. 
Besides,  it  is  dangerous  and  vexatious.  ^  And,  since  they  do  not 
abstain  from  Private  Masses,  and  do  not  agree  with  us  in  regard 
to  the  Mass,  viz.,  that  it  is  not  a  sacrifice,  why  do  they  wish  to 
retain  the  offensive  word,  seeing  that  it  is  unnecessary  and  dan- 
gerous ?  We  do  not  unnecessarily  expose  ourselves  to  danger,  for 
this  is  forbidden,  and  it  is  to  tempt  God.  St.  Augustine  says: 
Maintain  the  doctrine,  but  correct  the  language.  Speaking  of 
fate,  he  says :  He  that  understands  fate  as  the  decree  of  God, 
undei'stands  it  aright.  Yet  he  will  not  tolerate  the  Word,  but 
says :  Correct  the  language.  Shall  we  adopt  an  obscure  and 
uncertain  word,  when  we  find  it  hard  to  maintain  those  that  are 
clear  and  plain? 

"And  what  advantage  is  there  in  retaining  the  word  sacrifice 
in  the  Canon?  The  Canon  so  plainly  declares  the  ^Nlass  to  be  a 
true  sacrifice,  that  no  man  can  explain  or  understand  it  otherwise. 
For,  it  is  stated,  that  God,  by  the  hand  of  his  angel,  will  have 
such  a  sacrifice  of  the  ^Mass  brought  up  before  the  Holy  Altar. 
This  cannot  be  explained  as  meaning  a  memorial  of  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ,  for  this  must  be  done  by  preaching.    In  a  word, 


THE   EFFORTS   AT   RECONCILIATION.  —  CONCLUDED.  185 

in  the  Canon  the  praj^er  is  made  that  God  will  accept  this  sacri- 
fice, since  it  is  the  body  and  blood  of  His  dear  Son,  as  though  a 
man  must  intercede  for  Christ  with  God.  That  is  blasphemous 
and  infamous.  Hence,  the  Canon  is  not  to  be  tolerated. 

"Finally.  We  will  suffer  everything  and  make  concessions 
so  far  as  that  is  in  our  power.  But,  we  pray  that  they  will  not 
demand  of  us  what  is  not  in  our  power.  But,  it  is  not  in  our 
power  to  accept  anything  contrary  to  God 's  Word ;  and  it  is  not  in 
our  power  to  accept  a  form  of  worship  that  is  contrary  to  God's 
Word.  Fasts  and  festivals  instituted  by  men  we  can  accept  as  far 
as  they  have  been  established  by  the  civil  government,  as  a  civil 
ordinance ;  for  all  such  things  belong  to  the  secular  power,  which 
is  adorned  with  ceremonies,  robes,  gestures,  fasts  and  festivals. 
Such  things  God  subordinated  to  reason,  and  has  enjoined  that 
they  be  treated  as  optional  matters.  Gen.  2.  They  are  earthly 
things,  and  their  nature  is  earthly,  and  they  are  all  subordinated 
to  reason,  as  Paul  said:  Eide  over  the  earth.  Now,  inasmuch  as 
the  civil  government  is  the  highest  work  of  reason,  it  can  act  and 
command  in  these  matters. 

' '  Such'  is  my  answer  given  in  haste  to  Your  Princely  Grace 's 
inquiries.  I  commend  Your  Princely  Grace  to  the  favor  of  God. 
"Friday  after  Bartholomew  (August  26th)  anno  1530. 

"Obediently, 

' ' Martin  Luther,  D.  "  * 

On  the  same  day,  Luther  wrote  to  Spalatin  as  follows:  "I 
learn  that  you  somewhat  reluctantly  have  begun  a  marvelous 
work,  namely,  the  reconciliation  of  the  Pope  and  Luther.  But 
the  Pope  refuses,  and  Luther  begs  to  be  excused.  Take  care  lest 
your  labor  be  in  vain.  If  you  succeed  against  the  will  of  both 
of  us,  then  I  will  follow  your  example,  and  will  reconcile  Christ 
andBeliel."t 

On  the  same  day,  he  answered  Melauchthon 's  letter  of  22d, 
as  follows : 

"Grace  and  peace  in  Christ:  If  the  matter  was  to  end  in  this 
way.  My  Philip,  I  am  astonished  that  they  could  tolerate,  and 
could  treat  of  the  matter  in  a  friendly  way.  Is  there  not  indeed 
guile  and  treachery  there  ?  You  now  have  to  do  with  Cochlaeus 
with  the  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  and  with  those  ghostly  monks 
who  were  rowed  across  the  Rhine  at  Speyer.t    What  is  there  that 

*  De  Wette,  Luther's  Brief e,  IV.,  140-143. 

t  De  Wette,  IV.,  144. 

t  Historia  de  Spectris  Spirensibus.  Schirrmacher,  194-196. 


186  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED. 

I  have  ever  less  expected,  less  desired,  thau  to  negotiate  for  agree- 
ment in  doctrine?  It  would  be  like  driving  out  the  Pope,  or  as 
though  our  doctrine  and  the  papacy  could  be  conserved  together. 
There  is  the  semblance  of  a  treaty,  and  of  an  alliance,  in  order 
that  the  Pope  may  remain.  He  is  willing  to  concede  and  to  per- 
mit, provided  we  obey.  But,  thanks  to  God,  you  have  not  ac- 
cepted these  things. 

"You  write  that  you  forced  Eck  to  confess  that  we  are  justified 
by  faith.  Would  that  you  had  forced  him  not  to  lie.  Eck,  for- 
sooth, confesses  that  there  is  the  righteousness  of  faith.  But, 
meanwhile  the  papacy  defends  every  kind  of  abomination,  kills, 
prosecutes,  and  condemns  those  who  profess  the  doctrine  of 
faith :  and  instead  of  repenting,  it  goes  on.  The  same  is  done  by 
the  entire  party  of  the  adversaries.  Seek  for  terms  of  concord 
with  these  people  (si  Christo  placet),  and  toil  in  vain  until  they 
get  a  chance  to  destroy  us. 

"What  you  write  in  regard  to  both  species  is  correct.  I  agree 
with  you  that  it  is  not  a  matter  of  indifference,  but  a  command 
to  take  both  species  if  we  wish  to  take  the  sacrament.  In  the 
Church  of  God,  and  in  the  worship  of  God,  we  cannot  arbitrarily 
either  institute  or  tolerate  what  cannot  be  defended  by  the  Word 
of  God,  and  I  am  not  a  little  annoyed  by  this  sacrilegious  word 
indifferent.  Admit  one  thing  in  the  Word  of  God  to  be  indif- 
ferent, how  will  you  hinder  everything  from  becoming  indif- 
ferent? They  cry  and  vociferate  that  we  condemn  the  entire 
Church.  We  say  that  the  Church  has  been  led  captive,  and  has 
been  oppressed  by  the  tyranny  of  one  species,  and  hence  it  is  to 
be  excused,  just  as  the  entire  synagogue  in  Babylon  was  excused, 
because  it  could  not  observe  the  law  of  Moses  in  ecclesiastical  rites 
and  in  its  sacraments,  as  it  could  in  Jerusalem.  Now,  did  they 
cease  to  be  the  people  of  God,  because,  as  captives  and  forbidden, 
they  did  not  observe  the  rites  enjoined  upon  them?  But  Eck 
wants  himself  and  his  to  be  proclaimed  the  Church.  We,  on  the 
contrary,  say  that  we  do  not  condemn  the  entire  Church,  but 
that  in  nuitilating  the  sacrament,  they  condemn  the  entire  Word 
of  God  (which  is  more  than  the  Church). 

"As  touching  the  rendering  of  obedience  to  the  Bishops,  and 
as  touching  jurisdiction  and  common  ceremonies,  as  you  write, 
see  that  you  do  not  yield  more  than  you  have  yielded,  lest,  in 
defending  the  Gospel,  we  be  forced  to  a  more  difficult  and 
dangerous  war.  I  know  you  have  always  made  an  exception  of 
the  Gospel  in  these  agreements,  but  I  fear  that  hereafter  they 


THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED.  187 

will  charge  that  we  are  perfidious  and  fickle  if  we  do  not  do  as 
they  wish.  They  will  accept  concessions  large,  largius,  largissime, 
and  will  make  their  owti  stricte,  strictius,  strictissime. 

"Id  a  word,  I  ami  out-and-out  displeased  with  the  tractatus  de 
doctrinae  comordia,  since  such  is  plainly  impossible,  unless  the 
Pope  is  willing  to  put  away  his  popery.  Was  it  not  enough 
that  we  gave  account  of  our  faith,  and  seek  peace  f  Why  should 
we  expect  to  convert  them  to  the  truth"?  We  came  for  the  pur- 
pose of  learning  whether  or  not  they  would  approve  our  position, 
but  willing  to  allow  them  to  remain  what  they  are.  We  inquire, 
Will  they  condemn  or  will  they  approve?  If  they  condemn, 
what  profit  is  there  in  wishing  to  try  to  have  agreement  with 
enemies?  If  they  approve,  what  need  is  there  to  wish  to  retain 
the  old  abuses?  But,  since  it  is  certain  that  we  are  condemned 
by  them,  and  that  they  do  not  repent,  but  try  to  retain  their  own 
affairs,  why  do  we  not  understand  that  all  that  they  attempt  is 
deceit  and  lies?  For  you  cannot  say  that  their  affairs  proceed 
from  the  Holy  Spirit,  since  such  things  are  destitute  of  repent- 
ance, of  faith,  of  piety.  But  the  Lord,  who  began  this  work  in 
us,  will  perfect  it.    To  him  I  heartily  commend  you.    August 

26th,  1530.      . 

' '  Martin  Luther.  ' '  * 

Luther  wrote  also  the  same  day  to  Justus  Jonas :  ' '  Grace  and 
peace :  I  have  seen  and  read  the  decisions  of  yours  as  touching 
our  cause.  What  I  wrote  to  Philip,  that  I  write  to  you,  namely, 
that  in  fealty  to  Christ,  and  for  my  sake,  as  I  am  a  Christian, 
you  and  all  ours  believe  that  Campeggius  is  one  big,  notorious 
devil.  Words  cannot  express  how  vehemently  I  am  excited  about 
those  terms  proposed  by  the  other  party,  so  that  the  demons  are 
ridiculing  and  mocking  our  cause.  This  is  the  trick  of  Cam- 
peggius and  of  the  Pope,  first  to  try  our  cause  by  violence  and 
threats,  and  if  this  does  not  succeed,  then  to  assail  it  with 
treachery.  You  have  experienced  violence  and  threats,  and  you 
bore  the  terrible  advent  of  the  Emperor.  Now  you  are  bearing 
treachery  and  those  ghostly  monks  that  were  rowed  across  the 
Rhine  at  Speyer.  That  is,  they  are  proposing  harmony  in  doc- 
trine. This  is  a  mystery  indeed.  What  but  violence  and  deceit 
could  you  expect  from  the  father  of  deceit  and  lies,  the  author 
of  death  and  violence  ?  But  he  who  gave  you  power  to  overcome 
violence,  will  give  you  grace  and  strength  to  overcome  deceit.  Of 
*  De  Wette,  IV.,  145. 


188  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED. 

these  things  I  have  written  to  the  Prince  and  to  Philip.  The 
messenger  must  return  in  haste.  Quit  ye  like  men.  Don't  trust 
the  adversaries,  except  they  prove  their  position  by  plain 
Scripture.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  be  with  you.  Amen.  From  the 
Hermitage,  August  26th,  1530, 

' '  Martin  Luther.  " '  * 

In  these  four  letters,  Luther  employs  argument,  irony,  sar- 
casm, denunciation,  in  order  to  express  his  opposition  to  the 
Articles  proposed  for  the  reunion  of  the  Catholics  and  Lutherans. 
He  simply  will  not  tolerate  the  Articles.  They  are  an  abomina- 
tion to  him.  They  are  in  conflict  with  the  fundamental  princi- 
ples of  the  Gospel.  It  is  Luther  versus  the  Pope ;  it  is  the  Word  of 
God  versus  the  institutions  of  man;  it  is  Christ  versus  Beliel. 
There  could  be  no  reconciliation  along  such  lines.  The  point  of 
contact  was  wanting.  And  as  evidence  of  Luther's  abiding  and 
growing  opposition  to  the  Articles  of  Agreement,  we  have  his 
letters  of  August  28th  to  Spalatin,  Melanchthon  and  Jonas,  in 
which  he  warns  in  the  strongest  language  against  the  wiles  of 
the  enemy  and  against  the  making  of  further  concessions.f  About 
the  same  time,  he  wrote  an  ' '  Opinion, "  t  in  which  he  instructs 
his  colleagues  at  Augsburg  about  concessions  to  the  enemy.  As 
touching  the  doctrinal  Articles  of  the  Confession,  nothing  is  to 
be  yielded,  inasmuch  as  such  Articles  are  founded  on  Holy 
Scripture,  and  have  not  been  refuted  by  the  adversaries.  He  then 
takes  up  the  various  subjects  contained  in  the  Articles  on  Abuses. 

In  the  matter  of  both  species  in  the  Eucharist,  he  declares 
that  nothing  can  be  conceded,  since  no  man  can  change  an  insti- 
tution of  God,  neither,  "can  we  teach  in  our  churches  that 
those  do  not  sin,  nor  act  contrary  to  the  command  of  God,  who 
either  administer  or  receive  only  one  species."  "The  marriage 
of  the  priests  we  neither  can  nor  ought  to  prohibit,  since  it  was 
instituted,  appointed  and  confirmed  by  God."  "We  cannot  allow 
Private  INTass  to  be  restored  or  to  be  celebrated  in  our  churches, 
since  everybody  knows  that  it  is  an  idolatry  and  an  abuse."  "We 
distinctly  declare  that  we  cannot  receive  and  approve  either  the 
Small  or  the  Large  Canon,  since  in  express  terms  they  make  of 
the  Mass  a  w^ork  by  which  grace  and  the  remission  of  sins  are 
bestowed  ex  opere  operato  upon  the  priest  and  upon  the  lay  wor- 

*  De  Wette,  IV.,  147,  148. 
tDe  Wette,  IV.,  155-158. 
t  Erl.  Ausg.,  65 :  46  ct  seqq. 


THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. CONCLUDED.  189 

shiper. '"  He  is  willing  that  the  cloister  people  shall  remain  in 
the  cloisters  and  have  food  and  shelter,  but  their  Masses  and 
their  ungodly  manner  of  life  shall  not  be  tolerated.  He  thinks 
that  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  might  be  allowed,  provided  the 
Bishops  will  not  seek  to  persecute  and  to  exterminate  the  Luth- 
eran teaching.  Meats  and  festivals  cannot  be  allowed  to  burden 
the  conscience. 

The  "Opinion,"  of  which  we  have  presented  only  the  salient 
features,  is  a  trenchant  criticism  of  the  concessions  made  by  the 
Protestants  in  the  Committee  of  Fourteen.  It  shows  that  its 
author  is  out-and-out  opposed  to  making  any  more  concessions 
than  had  been  already  made  in  the  Confession ;  and  his  reasons 
for  rejecting  the  Abuses  are  even  stronger  and  clearer  than 
those  given  in  the  Confession  itself.  Luther,  who  had  taken  no 
active  part  in  the  preparation  of  the  Confession  after  April 
22d,  and  who  in  the  earlier  days  of  the  Diet  had  been  little  more 
than  an  interested  spectator,  and  who  for  much  of  the  time 
had  been  neglected  or  ignored,  has  now  stepped  to  the  front  and 
has  assumed  command  of  the  Lutheran  forces  at  Augsburg  and 
begins  to  determine  their  movements.  He  speaks  as  dictator  and 
prophet.  This  is  shown  in  a  letter  written  by  him  to  Lazarus 
Spengler  of  Augsburg:  "I  have  commended  the  cause  to  God, 
and  have  it  so  well  in  hand  that  no  man  can  force  me  to  yield 
anything,  nor  can  I  be  deserted  so  long  as  Christ  and  I  are  one. 
For  though  too  much  has  been  conceded  (for  this  I  was  not  pre- 
pared), yet  the  cause  is  not  lost,  but  a  new  conflict  has  been  begun 
in  which  our  opponents  will  be  convinced  that  they  have  acted 
dishonorably.  For,  besides  and  beyond  the  Gospel,  nothing  can 
be  conceded,  whoever  holds  the  field  by  guile.  For,  in  maintain- 
ing the  Gospel,  it  is  very  different  from  what  our  opponents 
allege  against  us,  because  what  is  the  wisdom  of  man  as  against 
God?  Therefore,  let  your  heart  be  at  peace.  We  will  concede 
nothing  against  the  Gospel.  But,  if  ours  concede  anything  con- 
trary to  the  Gospel,  then  shall  the  devil  take  that  party.  That 
shall  you  see.   August  28th,  anno  1530. 

"Martin  Luther,  D."  * 

But  while  Luther's  letters  of  August  26th  were  speeding  post- 
haste from  Coburg  to  Augsburg,  new  negotiations  for  peace 
were  proposed.  The  Catholics  were  not  satisfied  with  the  Lutheran 

*  De  Wette.  IV.,  158. 


190  THE   EFFORTS   AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED. 

Reply  of  August  28th.  Hence,  the  next  evening,  August  29th, 
Duke  Henry  of  Brunswick,  the  Bishop  of  Liege,  and  Count 
Hoyer,  of  Mansfeld,  took  supper  with  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 
The  Duke  and  others,  in  speeches,  not  all  of  which  were  seasoned 
with  grace,  insisted  on  the  appointment  of  a  new  committee 
to  take  the  matter  of  reunion  under  final  advisement.*  The  Luth- 
erans considered  the  proposition  the  next  day  and  rejected  it.f 
For  a  week  or  more,  there  had  been  a  growing  dissatisfaction 
with  the  concessions  that  had  been  made,  and  a  growing  deter- 
mination to  make  no  additional  concessions  to  the  Catholics,  and 
a  growing  unwillingness  to  engage  with  them  in  further  nego- 
tiations on  the  subject  of  reunion.  "Besides,  on  that  day 
came  Luther's  answer,  and  that  gave  the  casting  vote, "J  or  as 
another  has  said :  ' '  Turned  the  scale,  '  as  a  freeing  from  evil 
enchantment.'  "  All  honor  to  the  clear  eye  and  to  the  brave 
heart  of  IMartin  Luther.  He  saw  the  danger  from  afar,  and 
from  afar  he  gave  the  alarm.    His  followers  now  recoil  from  the 

*  Schirrmacher,  248 ;  Coelestin,  III.,  61a. 

t  C.  R.  II.,  334. 

$  Dr.  H.  Virck,  in  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchengeschichte,  Vol.  X.,  312.  (1) 
Already  on  the  morning  of  the  29th,  Luther's  answer  was  expected  (C.  R. 
II.,  322,  327).  Written  on  the  26th,  it  could  easily  have  reached  Augsburg 
on  the  evening  of  the  29th  or  on  the  morning  of  the  30th,  since  ' '  the  mes- 
senger must  return  in  haste."  De  Wette,  IV.,  147-8.  (2)  The  next  day 
the  Elector  asked  permission  to  return  home.  This  he  would  scarcely  have 
done  had  he  not  been  convinced  by  Luther's  answer  of  the  futility  of  any 
further  negotiations.  (3)  The  promptness  and  decisiveness  manii^ested  in 
rejecting  the  proposition  of  the  Catholics  show  the  presence  of  a  new  in- 
fluence. (4)  Seckendorf  says  distinctly:  "It  seemed  good  to  the  Protest- 
ants, strengthened  by  Luther's  letters,  to  abstain  from  that  deceitful  nego- 
tiation for  concord. ' '  Lib.  II.,  §  LXXV. ;  and  Maurenbrecker  says :  "  In  my 
opinion  Luther's  letters  of  August  26th  to  the  Elector  John,  Spalatin,  Mel- 
anchthon,  Justus  Jonas  and  Brentz  (De  Wette,  IV.,  140-145)  were  undoubt- 
edly the  deciding  factors."  (Geschichte  der  Katholischen  Beformation, 
p.  411.)  (5)  On  the  morning  of  the  29th  Melanehthon  informs 
Luther  that  his  answer  has  not  yet  been  received  (C.  E.  II.,  327). 
September  1st  he  informs  him:  "Day  before  yesterday  (August 
30th)  our  conference  came  to  an  end.  For  we  were  not  willing 
to  accept  the  terms  in  regard  to  one  part  of  the  Sacrament,  the 
Canon,  Private  Masses,  and  Celibacy."  (C.  R.  II.,  336.)  See  also  Enders 
(Briefrvechsel  Luther's,  vol.  8:  216,  239),  who  says:  "This  letter,  as  like- 
wise the  following  of  August  26th,  came  to  Augsburg  on  the  30th."  Bern- 
hard  Besserer,  in  his  letter  to  Ulm,  August  24th,  says  that  a  letter  has 
been  received  from  Luther,  which  shows  that  he  has  become  "perfectly 
furious ' '  over  the  situation  at  Augsburg.  Such  a  Luther  letter  as  Besserer 
describes  is  not  extant,  but  that  such  a  letter  had  been  received  at  Augs- 
burg, cannot  be  doubted.  Besserer 's  letter,  which  only  recently  has  been 
published,  throws  much  light  on  the  situation  at  Augsburg  just  after  the 
dissolution  of  the  Committee  of  Fourteen.  It  is  given  by  Kolde  in  Analecta 
Lutherana,  pp.  148-9.  The  letter  declares  that  there  is  great  dissatisfaction 
among  the  Evangelicals  with  the  concessions  that  had  been  made  in  the 
Committee. 


THE   EFFORTS   AT    RECOXCILIATION. — CONCLUDED.  191 

brink  of  the  precipice  to  which  the  insidiac  of  their  enemies  and 
their  own  imhecilitas  ajiimi  had  led  them. 

Hence,  the  language  in  which  their  final  decision  is  recorded 
shows  a  marked  change  of  sentiment  and  a  marked  difference 
in  tone.*  On  the  morning  of  29th,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  had 
"graciously  heard"  the  Niirnberg  Remonstrance,  and,  as  we 
have  learned,  had  promised  that  he  would  make  no  more  con- 
cessions. And  now,  when  Luther's  letters  came,  the  change  Avas 
made  complete.  In  the  face  of  the  most  strenuous  opposition 
from  their  most  devoted  allies,  and  in  view  of  Luther's  emphatic 
rejection  of  the  Articles  of  Agreement,  it  would  have  been 
morally  impossible  for  the  Saxons  and  the  Margravians  to  have 
continued  this  solemn  farce  with  the  Catholics,  in  which,  if  it 
can  be  said  that  the  Catholic  Seven  played  a  subtle  and  deceit- 
ful part,  it  can  be  said  also  that  the  Lutheran  Seven  did  not 
play  a  manly  and  courageous  part.  They  did  not  stand  firmly 
by  all  the  doctrines  and  principles  enimciated  in  their  Confes- 
sion. It  is  sad  to  reflect  that  in  the  negotiations  almost  every- 
thing is  made  to  turn  finally  on  subjects  which  the  Confession 
itself  had  treated  as  "Abuses."  The  so-called  doctrinal  articles 
— Articuli  pdei  Praecipui — of  the  Confession  seems  to  have 
dropped  quite  out  of  sight :  at  least  they  are  not  held  in  the 
Small  Committee  as  a  ground  of  difference  and  as  a  sufficient 
reason  for  separation.  One  may  be  thankful  that  in  the  long 
contention  of  over  two  months,  so  much  that  is  fundamental 
to  Protestantism  was  saved;  but  it  would  have  been  a  thousand 
times  better  had  the  Lutherans,  both  in  their  Confession,  and 
in  the  subsequent  negotiations,  given  a  clearer,  a  sharper  state- 
ment of  the  distinctive  evangelical  doctrines,  and  had  made  a  ^ 
more  valiant  defense  of  those  doctrines,  as  Luther.  ■\Ielauchthon 
and  others,  had  enunciated  and  defended  them  in  their  private 
writings.  Nevertheless,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  it  was  sub- 
sequently edited  by  its  author  and  published,  and  as  it  was 
explained  in  the  Apology,  in  the  Loci  Communes,  in  the  Repeti- 
tion (1551)  and  in  many  Opinions,  and  as  it  was  defended  by  / 
its  author  and  others  in  diets  and  in  colloqiiies,  became,  and  is 
to-day,  the  great  evangelical  bulwark  against  Rome,  both  in 
doctrine  and  in  practice.  It  is  the  fundamental  Creed  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  and  is  the  only  distinctive  Creed 

*  See  Schirrmacher,  p.  147;   Coelestin,  Til..  61a;  Sleidan   (Eng.  Trans.), 
p.  132;  Spalatin,  190;  C.  R.  II.,  320. 


192  THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED. 

that  has  had  universal  recognition   in  the  Lutheran   Church, 
Therefore,  it  is  the  Creed  of  Lutheran  Catholicity. 

But,  with  the  action  of  the  Lutherans  on  August  30th,  the 
negotiations  for  union  and  concord  came  practically  to  a  close. 
The  crisis  is  now  past.  The  opposition  that  had  set  in  when  the 
concessions  of  the  Lutheran  Seven  became  knowTi,  and  Luther's 
letters,  had  forced  the  Saxons  and  the  Margravians  back  beyond 
the  point  of  danger,  and  had  brought  them  to  a  better  under- 
standing with  their  more  steadfast  allies.  Melanchthon,  indeed, 
still  longs  and  sighs  for  peace  and  reconciliation,  and  some  of 
the  Catholics  make  fresh  proposals  and  desire  to  continue  nego- 
tiations; but  all  in  vain.  The  Lutherans  as  a  body  remain  firm, 
and  reply  that  they  can  concede  no  more  than  had  been  conceded, 
and  that  they  will  rest  the  matter  with  God  and  a  good  con- 
science.* Luther  continues  to  exhort  his  friends  to  steadfast- 
ness, while  the  Elector  of  Saxony  insists  on  taking  his  leave 
of  the  Diet.  Finally,  September  22d,  the  Lutherans  offer  to 
read  their  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.!  The  next  day, 
the  Elector  of  Saxony,  accompanied  by  his  illustrious  chancellors 
and  by  his  theologians,  left  Augsburg.  His  example  was  fol- 
lowed the  same  evening  hy  the  Dukes  of  Liineburg  and  the  Prince 
of  Anhalt,  and  on  the  next  day  by  the  legates  of  Reutlingen, 
Heilbron  and  Kempten. 

Practically,  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  was  now  brought  to  a  close. 
Further  negotiations  and  conferences  could  make  no  essential 
change,  for  the  chief  Lutheran  leaders  had  departed  from  Augs- 
burg. The  work  for  which  they  had  gone  thither,  namely,  to 
defend  themselves  against  false  accusations,  and  to  sue  for  peace 
had  been  done.  The  Augsburg  Confession — confession  and  apol- 
ogy in  one — had  passed  into  history;  the  reunion  efforts  had 
come  to  naught;  the  Catholics  and  the  Lutherans  were  further 
apart  at  the  close  of  the  Diet  than  they  had  been  at  its  begin- 
ning. All  subsequent  efforts  to  reunite  them  have  failed.  Their 
fundamental  principles  are  different.  Lutheranism  is  based  on 
the  Word  of  God.  Catholicism  is  based  on  the  authority  of  the 
Church.  Lutheranism  holds  that  the  institutions  of  men  have 
no  dominion  over  the  conscience.  Catholicism  holds  that  the  in- 
stitutions of  the  Church  bind  the  conscience  as  conditions  of 

*  Spalatin,  p.  190. 

t  August  29th,  Melanchthon  was  commissioned  to  write  the  Apology. 
Schirrmacher,  p.  530 ;  Plitt,  Apologie,  p.  87.  This  shows  that  the  Lutherans 
had  decided  to  discontinue  negotiations. 


THE    EFFORTS    AT    RECONCILIATION. — CONCLUDED.  193 

salvation.  Lutheranism  teaches  that  the  Confession  itself  is 
open  to  revision  and  to  improvement  in  statement.*  Catholicism 
pronounces  an  anathema  on  all  -^vho  reject  her  canons  and 
decrees.! 

*  See  Bishop  von  Scheele's  Symholik,  pj).  v.  and  31.  in  Part  First,  and 
pp.  80,  81  in  Part  Second. 

t  See  Council  of  Trent,  Passim. 

13 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession. 

During  the  dogmatic  era  of  the  Lutheran  Church  it  was  quite 
the  custom  among  the  Gnesio-Lutherans,  as  indicated  in  Chap- 
ter II.,  to  speak  of  Luther  as  the  chief  author  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  The  reasons  given  for  this  judgment  were,  that 
Luther,  at  the  request  and  with  the  approval  of  his  Wittenberg 
colleagues,  had  composed  seventeen  doctrinal  articles,  and  about 
March  20th  had  carried  the  same  to  Torgau,  on  account  of  which 
they  were  called  the  Torgau  Articles;  that  out  of  these  Torgau 
Articles  Melanchthon  arranged  the  Confession ;  that  ' '  Luther 
suggested,  digested,  and  prescribed  the  material  out  of  which  the 
Confession  was  woven;"  that  he  directed  and  controlled  all  the 
theological  deliberations  at  Augsburg,  and  that  nothing  was  done 
at  Augsburg  without  his  consent.* 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  in  the  main  these  reasons  are  fictions 
and  fancies,  and  not  facts,  and  they  w^ould  not  be  noticed  here 
but  for  the  fact  that  half  a  century  and  more  ago  some  Lutheran 
theologians  in  Germany,  and  some  in  America,  writing  and 
contending  more  in  support  of  a  confessional  prepossession  than 
in  the  interest  of  historical  science,  have  revived  the  old  con- 
tention. But  historical  criticism,  conducted  in  the  interest  of 
historical  science,  has  settled  the  question  of  the  authorship  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  has  determined  the  extent  of 
Lutlier's  influence  in  the  composition  of  the  said  Confession.  As 
all  the  chief  facts  were  given  in  Chapter  II.,  it  may  suffice  to 
"say  here  that  Luther  knew  absolutely  nothing  about  the  change 
of  the  Apology  into  a  Confession  of  faith  until  he  received  the 
copy  of  the  first  draft  sent  him  by  the  Elector  on  the  eleventh 
of  May.  After  this  he  did  not  see  the  Confession  in  any  form 
until  he  received  the  copy  sent  him  by  Melanchthon,  June  26th. 

1.      The  Long  Silence. 

In  this  interval  occurred  a  long  silence  in  which  Luther  heard 

nothing  from  Augsburg.    That  there  was  a  long  period  of  silence, 

*  See   John   Wigand,  Historia  de  Augsb.   Confessione,   Cyprian,   p.    123. 
Calovins,  Exeqema,  Cap.,  II.     Boernor,  In,<iiitution(s  Stnyih.  TheoL,  pp.  32,  33. 

(194) 


LUTHER'S    RP:LATI0.\S    TO    THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION.  195 

and  that  Luther  bitterly  complained  of  it,  cannot  be  questioned. 
June  19th  he  wrote  to  Dydimus,  of  Torgau:  "For  an  entire 
month  ours  have  reported  nothing  from  Augsburg."*  On  the 
twentieth  he  wrote  to  Jonas :  "At  last  your  letter  has  come, 
My  Jonas,  after  that  for  fully  three  weeks  you  have  well  tor- 
mented us  with  unbroken  silence,  though  I  wrote  Philip  twice 
that  you  should  not  thus  be  silent.  Had  it  not  been  for  the 
circumstance  of  the  times  I  should  have  thought  of  revenge.  But 
the  time  of  prayer  does  not  permit  to  be  angry,  and  anger  does 
not  permit  prayer.  Nevertheless  I  have  taken  care  to  render 
you  notorious,  especially  at  Wittenberg.  You  cannot  blame  the 
messengers.  They  faithfully  delivered,  especially  the  one  hired 
by  you.  From  the  time  when  he  delivered  yours,  I  have  received 
nothing  except  this  last  one  about  the  coming  and  the  entrance 
of  the  Emperor,  and  yesterday  about  your  complaints.  But  I 
will  avenge  this  at  the  right  time. '  'f  Messenger  after  messenger 
came  to  Coburg.  but  they  brought  no  letters  for  Luther,  and  he 
began  to  suspect  that  the  Lutherans  at  Augsburg  were  conceal- 
ing something  from  him.$  Finally,  when  letters  did  come,  he 
was  so  angry  that  he  would  not  read  them.§  IMelanchthon  and 
Jonas  tried  to  throw  the  blame  on  the  letter-carriers,  but  Luther 
indignantly  replied :  "It  is  not  the  fault  of  the  carrier.  It  is 
your  fault  and  yours  only,  but  may  Christ  by  his  Spirit  forgive 
you  and  strengthen  and  teach  you."  || 

Dr.  Knaake  says:  " Melanchthon 's  silence  extends  over  the 
entire  time  from  May  22d  to  June  15th. "^  Kostlin  says: 
"Luther  remained  without  a  letter  for  four  weeks."**  Plitt 
says:  "For  three  weeks  long  he  (Luther)  heard  nothing  from 
Augsburg."  ft  And  Kolde:  "He  (Luther)  had  every  reason  to 
be  angry,  since  at  one  time  his  friends  in  Augsburg  left  him 
for  three  weeks  wnthout  any  news.  Even  Jonas,  who  wrote  him 
about  things  of  small  importance,  regularly  forgot  to  say  how 
matters  stood  with  the  Evangelicals  and  with  the  Evangelical 
Confession.  The  Augsburgers  tried  in  vain  to  shift  the  blame 
upon  the  faithful  carriers.  Luther  knew  that  they  really  had  not 
written."  tj  As  the  letters  of  Melanchthon  and  Jonas  were  sent 
by  a  special  messenger,  they  probably  reached  Coburg  May  2<)th. 
From^that  time  on  to  June  20th  Luther  received  no  news  from 

*De  Wette,  IV.,  44.  If  Luther's  Antheil,  p.  51. 

t  De  Wette,  IV.,  45.  **  Martin  Luther,  II.,  655. 

t  De  Wette,  IV.,  60.  tf  V.  Martin  Luther,  p.  369. 

§  C.  E.  II.,  141.  If  Martin  Luther,  11.,  339. 
||De  Wette,  IV.,  50. 


196        Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession. 

Augsburg;  that  is.  for  about  twenty-tive  days.  "The  messenger 
was  innocent  and  Luther's  complaint  was  well  founded,"  says 
Kawerau.* 

These  facts  show  to  what  extent  Luther  directed  and  shaped 
the  course  of  events  at  Augsburg,  and  to  what  extent  he  exerted 
an  influence  in  the  composition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in 
which  Melanchthon  was  daily  making  changes  by  recasting  arti- 
cles, by  omitting  the  Preface,  by  adding  articles  and  giving  new 
shape  and  coloring  to  the  entire  Confession.  And  it  was  during 
that  long  period  of  silence  especially  that  the  principal  changes 
were  made.  The  draft  sent  to  Luther,  ]\Iay  11th.  was  gradually 
becoming  the  finished  Confession  without  any  knowledge  of  the 
fact  on  the  part  of  Luther,  and  without  a  single  word  of  advice 
or  suggestion  from  him,  so  that  instead  of  being  now  the  Con- 
fession of  the  Elector  of  Saxony  it  had  become  the  Common 
Confession  of  the  Lutheran  Princes  assembled  at  Augsburg.  Of 
all  these  changes,  we  repeat,  Luther  knew  nothing  at  all.  except 
what  may  be  gathered  from  the  slight  notification  contained  in 
Melanchthon 's  letter  of  ^lay  22d:  "We  are  daily  making 
changes."  Hence  Luther  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  the 
finished  Confession.  He  had  given  his  approval  to  the  first 
draft,  but  to  no  more.  From  iMay  22d  to  June  25th  he  was 
written  to,  by  the  Elector  June  1st,  by  Jonas  June  12th  and 
13th,  by  ]\Ielanchthon  June  13th,  by  Jonas  June  18th,  by 
Melanchthon  June  19tli.  But  not  one  of  these  letters  informs 
him  of  the  work  that  is  being  done  on  the  Confession,  or  inquires 
for  his  opinion,  or  asks  his  advice  about  the  Confession-Apology 
that  is  the  subject  of  so  much  care  and  activity  at  Augsburg. 
And  of  the  letters  written  by  Luther  from  Coburg  to  his  friends, 
April  23d  to  June  29th.  in  so  far  as  they  have  come  down  to  us, 
eighteen  in  number,  only  one,  that  of  May  15th,  to  the  Elector, 
makes  any  reference  to  the  Confession.  All  the  others  are  as 
silent  about  the  Confession  as  though  such  a  thing  had  never 
existed.  But  what  is  the  most  remarkable  of  all  is  the  fact  that 
Luther  never  wrote  a  line  to  Melanchthon  about  the  ' '  Apology ' ' 

*  Jonas,  Brief  icechsel,  I.,  p.  160  n.  Professor  Credner  calls  atteutiou  to 
the  fact  that  Luther  nowhere  and  never  laid  the  weight  on  the  Augsburg 
Confession  that  he  laid  on  Melanchthon 's  Loci  Communes,  nor  spoke  of  it 
as  he  spoke  of  that  book.  "The  chief  weight,"  says  Credner,  "that -Luther 
laid  on  the  Augsburg  Confession  arose  from  the  fact  that  by  it,  in  a  great 
assembly  of  the  Empire,  the  overwhelming  proof  was  furnished  that  the 
doctrines  and  Articles  of  Faith,  in  tcMcli  the  Evangelicals  differ  from  the 
Catholics,  are  not  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scripture.  The  chief  passage  is 
found  in  his  Warning  to  his  beloved  Germans,  Jena  ed.,  V.,  fol.  280  et 
seqq."     F.xiirlern)\gen  KirchUchcr  Zeitfnigen,  1848,  p.  109. 


Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession.       197 

imtil  after  June  25tli,  though  ]Melanehthon  three  times,  May 
4th,  11th,  22d,  gave  Luther  information  about  the  "Apology" 
and  at  least  furnished  Luther  the  opportunity  to  write  him 
about  it. 

Such  are  the  facts,  and  they  show  to  a  demonstration  that 
from  ]\lay  2d  to  June  25th,  Luther's  influence  at  Augsburg  was 
small  indeed.  AVithin  that  period  he  was  not  the  inspirer  and 
director  of  the  movements  at  Augsburg.  For  three  full  weeks, 
or  more,  he  was  left  in  total  ignorance  of  what  was  going  on 
there.  For  more  than  four  weeks  he  was  not  informed  in  regard 
to  the  daily  changes  that  were  made  in  the  "Apology." 

And  yet,  it  is  not  intended  by  this  recital  of  facts  to  intimate 
that  Luther  exerted  no  influence  at  Augsburg  within  these  dates. 
He  prayed  for  his  friends  at  Augsburg,  and  exhorted  them, 
especially  the  Elector  and  Melanchthon,  to  steadfastness.  But 
this  he  did  much  more  after  June  25th  than  he  did  before 
that  time,  as  his  letters  show.*  It  was  not  until  he  had  read  the 
copy  of  the  Confession  sent  him  by  ]\Ielanchthon,  June  26th, 
and  was  asked  what  further  concessions  were  to  be  made,!  and 
perceived  that  the  leading  Lutherans  were  intent  upon  recon- 
ciliation with  the  enemy,  that  he  threw  himself  into  the  scale 
and  measurably  resumed  the  old  dictatorship,  which  many  a 
time  had  brought  inspiration  to  the  hearts  of  friends,  and  had 
sent  dismay  into  the  hearts  of  the  foe.  Even  then,  he  could 
and  did  write  to  Alelanchthon :  "I  am  displeased,  because  in 
your  letters  you  wrote  that  in  this  matter  you  follow  my  author- 
it.y.    I  will  neither  be  nor  be  called  your  authority. ' '  % 

Perhaps  no  one  has  stated  the  case,  as  made  Imown  by  the 
facts,  better  than  Professor  Plitt.  He  says :  "It  would  be  a 
mistake  to  suppose  that  Luther  from  Coburg  directed  affairs 
on  the  Evangelical  side,  at  Augsburg.  From  his  fortress,  he 
followed  all  the  proceedings  there  with  the  closest  attention. 
He  had  them  continually  before  him.  He  lived  through  them, 
and  fought  through  them  inwardly,  and  especially  did  he  carry 
them  in  his  believing,  praying  heart.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
exerted  a  great  influence  on  the  course  of  events.  But  he  did  not 
purposely  and  intentionally  do  so.  On  the  contrary,  so  far  as 
was  in  him,  he  purposely  refrained  from  such  influencing,  and 
repeatedly  expressed  himself  to  the  contrary,  when  something 

*  De  Wette,  IV.,  53,  49,  62,  63,  65,  82,  83,  84,  S8,  89,  91  et  passim. 
tC  E.  II.,   144. 
$  De  Wette,  IV.,  53. 


198        Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession. 

of  the  kind  was  expected  of  him  at  Augsburg.  The  cause  is  not 
mine,  he  said.  Only  at  the  beginning  of  his  sojourn  at  Coburg, 
in  his  Admonition  to  the  Clergy  Assembled  at  Augsburg  *  did 
he  undertake,  in  his  own  strong  and  free  way,  to  warn  them 
for  their  oivn  sakes,  not  to  aim  the  bow  too  high,  inasmuch  as 
Miinzer's  spirit  is  not  yet  dead,  but  finally  to  propose  peace, 
as  he  summoned  them  to  make  the  Gospel  free.  And  then,  when 
his  friends  at  Augsburg  showed  signs  of  weakening,  and  the  es- 
sential thing  seemed  to  be  in  peril,  even  with  greater  vehe- 
mence did  he  cast  his  sword  into  the  scale.  In  other  matters,  he 
quietly  held  himself  aloof,  and  let  things  come  to  him,  in 
order  to  express  himself  about  them  occasionally  as  it  seemed 
good  to  him. ' '  f 

The  above  must  be  regarded  as  an  intelligent,  fair  and  impar- 
tial statement  of  the  facts  touching  the  question  of  Luther's 
influence  on  the  Diet  at  Augsburg.  It  will  be  observed  that  the 
learned  author  does  not  even  mention  the  Augsburg  Confession 
as  coming  within  the  scope  of  that  influence.  He  also  declares 
that  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  Luther  directed  affairs  at 
Augsburg.  Had  he  known  The  Oldest  Redaction  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  and  had  he  been  able  to  comprehend  the  crude 
form  of  the  draft  sent  to  Luther,  May  11th,  and  had  he  had 
before  him  the  conclusions  of  the  learned  in  regard  to  the  Tor- 
gau  Articles,  he  doubtless  would  have  said  that  Luther's  influ- 
ence on  the  composition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  so 
small  that  it  could  not  be  estimated. 

If  now  the  question  should  be  asked.  Why  did  Luther  take 
so  little  interest  in  the  composition  of  the  Confession  and  in 
affairs  generally  at  Augsburg,  prior  to  June  25th,  the  following 
reasons  may  be  given :  1.  Only  once  was  he  officially  consulted 
about  the  Confession,  May  11th.  2.  He  was  very  much  occu- 
pied with  the  translation  of  the  Prophets,  and  of  ^'Esop,  and 
with  other  literary  work.  Of  his  literary  labors,  he  makes  fre- 
quent mention  in  his  correspondence. J  3.  He  did  not  expect  that 
anything  of  importance  would  be  accomplished  at  or  by  the 
Diet.§ 

*  This  Admonition  was  addressed  to  the  Catholic,  not  to  the  Lutheran, 
clergy  at  Augsburg.  Erl.  Ed.  of  Luther's  Works,  24:  356.  It  has  been 
called  Luther 's  Augsburg  Confession.  It  was  known  at  Augsburg  by  June 
7th.  Its  sale  at  Augsburg  was  forbidden  by  command  of  the  Emperor. 
C.  R.  II.,  91. 

tPr.  Martin  Luther's  Leben,  pp.  363-4. 

t  Be  Wette,  IV..  10,  15,  43,  44,  45. 

§  C.  R.  II.,  141. 


Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession.       199 

2.  After  the  Reading  of  the  Confession. 
r  On  Sunday,  June  26th,  Melanchthon  wrote  Luther,  saying: 
"Our  defense  has  been  presented  to  the  Emperor.  In  my  opin- 
ion it  is  sufficiently  vehement."  On  the  following  day,  June 
27th,  he  wrote  to  Veit  Dietrich,  who  was  with  Luther  at  Coburg, 
and  said:  "We  have  sent  you  a  copy  of  the  Confession.  Keep 
it  by  you,  so  that  it  be  not  published.  But  write  me  back  the 
Doctor's  opinion  of  it."  *  Jiuie  3d,  he  wrote  again  to  Dietrich,  ' 
and  said :  "I  desire  to  laiow  whether  the  Dr.  is  in  a  better 
humor,  and  what  he  thinks  about  the  Apology. ' '  t 

These  letters  make  it  very  evident  that  Melanchthon  was  im- 
patient to  learn  what  Luther  thought  about  the  finished  Con-  / 
fession,  which  was  now  so  vastly  different  from  what  it  was  in 
that  first  draft  which  had  been  sent  May  11th.  But  not  only  did 
he  wish  to  Imow  what  Luther  thought  about  the  Confession,  he 
wished  to  know  also  what  Luther  might  think  about  additional 
concessions  to  the  enemy,  and  about  certain  important  sub- 
jects of  dispute.  Hence,  in  the  letter  of  June  26th,  he  wrote, 
among  other  things,  the  following :  "I  now  think  we  will  have 
to  decide  before  the  enemy  makes  reply,  what  we  will  concede 
to  them.  The  entire  deliberation  will  be  about  hath  species, 
about  iMarriage,  about  Private  Mass.  Answer  with  reference  to 
these  things,  and  especially  with  reference  to  Private  Mass, 
which  our  opponents  seem  utterly  unwilling  to  surrender." 
I  These  extracts  furnish  the  proof  that  IMelanchthon  did  not 
!  regard  the  Confession  as  the  Protestant  ultimatum,  nor  con- 
'  .  sider  that  the  negotiations  with  the  Catholics  were  closed.  He 
looked  on  the  Confession  rather  as  the  first  step  in  the  direction 
of  the  attainment  of  that  harmony  with  the  Church  of  Rome, 
which  had  been  broken  by  the  Wittenberg  movement,  and  which 
the  Saxons  especially  were  seeking  to  restore.  And  the  sequel 
shows  that  he  was  altogether  correct  in  his  prophecy  as  to  the 
subject  of  future  controversy,  subjects  as  we  have  learned  that 
do  not  so  nuich  concern  the  articles  of  doctrine,  but  belong 
chiefly  to  the  matters  which  the  Confession  itself  had  catalo£:ued 
under  "abuses  which  have  been  corrected." 

This  letter,  besides  throwing  a  good  deal  of  light  on  the  end 
for  which  the  Confession  was  written,  shows  that  ]\Ielanchthon 
had  two  objects  in  view  in  sending  a  copy  of  the  finished 
Confession  to  Luther,  and  in  writing  the  letter  that  accompanied 
it  to  Coburg.  The  one  was  to  draw  out  Luther  on  the  subject 
*  C.  E.  II.,  147.  t  C.  R.  II.,  157. 


200        Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession. 

of  further  concessions  to  the  enemy.  The  other  object  was  to 
get  his  opinion  in  regard  to  the  abuses  named.  The  letter  and 
the  copy  of  the  Confession  reached  Coburg  June  29th.  Luther 
I  replied  immediately:  "I  have  received  your  Apology,  and  I 
I  wonder  what  you  mean  by  asking  what  and  how  much  must  be 
'conceded  to  the  Papists.  As  touching  the  Prince  it  is  a  dififer- 
ent  question,  as  to  what  he  is  to  concede,  if  danger  threatens 
him.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  more  than  enough  has  been 
already  conceded  in  that  Apology.  If  they  refuse  that.  I  do  not 
see  what  more  I  can  concede,  unless  their  reasons  and  writings 
should  appear  clearer  to  me  than  I  have  hitherto  seen  them.  I 
am  occupied  day  and  night  on  this  matter,  thinking,  revolving, 
discussing,  searching  the  Scriptures.  Confidence  in  our  doc- 
trine grows  upon  me.  I  am  more  and  more  confirmed,  so  that, 
God  willing,  I  will  allow  nothing  more  to  be  taken  from  me, 
come  what  may. ' '  * 

It  is  only  now  that  ]\Ielanchthon  begins  in  earnest  to  seek 
counsel   and  assistance   from   Luther.      In   this   same   letter   of 
June  26th,  he  writes  also:     "In  these  momentous  concerns  we 
follow  your  authority."     To  this  Luther  makes  reply  as   fol- 
lows: "I  am  displeased  that  in  your  letter  you  write  that  in 
this  matter  you  follow  my  authority.    I  am  unwilling  to  be,  or 
to  be  called,  your  authority  in  this  matter.     Even  though  the 
word  might  be  properly  interpreted,  nevertheless  I  do  not  desire 
1    ,     it.     If  the  matter  be  not  at  the  same  time  equally  yours,  I  am 
N     unwilling  that  it  should  be  called  mine,  and  should  be  imposed 
^    on  you.    If  it  were  solely  mine,  I  myself  would  act. ' ' 

This  letter  of  Luther's,  the  salient  points  of  which  we  have 

given,  is  clear  and  decisive.     It  shows  that  on  this  day  he  is 

taking  very  little  responsibility  for  the  movement  of  affairs  at 

Augsburg,  and  that  his  relation  towards  the  Confession  is  one 

^  of  criticism,  rather  than  one  of  approbation. 

\       1.     AYhat   ]^Ielanehthon   regards   as   "sufficiently   vehement," 

Luther  regards  as  too  conciliatory — as  having  conceded  too  much 

to  the  enemy.    Hence,  his  opinion  of  the  Confession,  as  expressed 

J  in  this  letter,  is  not  unqualifiedly  approbatory.     There  can  be 

j  no  doubt  that  it  would  have  pleased  him  better,  had  it  been 

I  more  decidedly  anti-Romish,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  had 

I  Luther  been  at  Augsburg,  and  had  been  allowed  to  take  part 

in  the  composition  of  the  Confession,  the  same  would  have  been 

1  less  conciliatory,  that  is,  more  Lutheran  and  more  positively 

*  De  Wette,  IV.,  51  et  seqq. 


Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession.       201 

I  aggressive  against  Kome  than  it  is.  To  verify  this  conclusion, 
one  has  only  to  read  Luther's  Avritings.  both  the  controversial 
and  the  didactic,  his  letter  yet  to  be  quoted,  and  the  complaints 
of  the  Romanists  that  the  Confession,  as  it  had  been  given  to 
them,  did  not  fairly  and  fully  represent  the  Lutheran  teach- 
ing.* 

2.  The  letter  shows  that  Luther  is  fixed  in  his  determina- 
tion to  allow  nothing  additional  to  be  wrested  from  him.  The 
Elector  may  do.  under  the  circumstances,  what  he  pleases.  But- 
Luther  has  resolved  to  make  no  more  concessions.  In  the 
common  cause  too  many  concessions  have  been  already  made. 
The  conviction  grows  upon  him  that  his  teaching  is  scriptural. 

3.  He  is  not  willing  that  the  men  at  Augsburg  shall  shift  the 
responsibility  from  themselves  and  place  it  upon  him.  It  is 
a  common  cause  in  which  they  are  engaged.  The  men  at  Augs- 
burg are  not  to  take  refuge  under  his  authority.  They  must 
meet  the  foe  in  their  own  name. 

From  the  position  so  emphatically  taken  in  this  letter,  Luther 
made  no  recession.  In  his  subsecjuent  letters  written  during  the 
Diet,  in  his  references  to  the  Confession  and  in  his  references 
to  the  negotiations  going  on  there,  we  find  no  deviation  from 
the  sentiments  expressed  in  this  letter.  He  remains  as  consistent 
as  truth,  and  as  firm  as  adamant.  Some  of  his  references  to  the 
Confession  are  decidedly  qualified,  and  his  protests  against  the 
spirit  of  compromise  existing  at  Augsburg,  and  against  the  con- 
cessions made  there,  are  clear  and  luaequivocal.  so  that  we  may 
say,  truthfully,  that  with  this  letter  of  June  29th  begins  Luther's 
real  influence  in  determining  matters  on  the  Protestant  side  at 
Augsburg,  that  is.  it  may  be  truthfully  said,  that  from  this  time 
on  Luther  directs  his  party  at  Augsburg,  and  helps  to  shape 
the  conclusions  that  are  finally  reached,  so  that  Professor 
Maurenbrecker,  in  treating  of  the  portion  of  the  Diet's  his- 
tory now  under  review,  and  of  Luther's  letters  of  August 
26th,  is  fully  justified  in  saj'ing:  "Luther's  letters  nerved  and 
strengthened  the  resolution  of  the  Protestant  Princes,  and  helped 
to  bring  back  to  the  theological  spokesman  (Melanchthon)  the 
Protestant  consciousness,  that  in  him  had  vacillated  and  hesi- 
tated. But  for  Luther's  heroic  interposition,  who  knows  that 
the  proceedings  at  Augsburg  would  not  have  had  a  very  lament- 
able ending ! "  f 

*  See  Ficker,  Die  Ersie  Konfutation,  p.  40;  Cochlaeus,  Termalinung, 
E.,  II. 

t  Geschichte  der  Katholischen  Feformaiion,  p.  305. 


\ 


202        Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession. 

r  July  3d  Luther  wrote  again  to  Melanehthon,  saying:  "Yester- 
day I  carefully  re-read  your  entire  Apology.  It  pleases  me  very 
much.  But  it  errs  and  sins  in  one  thing  which  operates  against 
Holy  Scripture,  where  Christ  says  in  regard  to  himself :  We 
tvill  not  have  this  man  rule  over  us,  and  it  strikes  against  that 
condemnation :  27ie  stone  which  the  huilders  rejected.  Where 
there  is  so  much  darkness  and  blindness,  what  can  you  expect, 
but  to  be  rejected?  They  do  not  concede  to  us  the  name  of 
builders.  This  they  claim  for  themselves,  and  justly.  We  ought 
to  glory  in  the  name  of  destroyers,  scatterers,  dissipators,  since 
we  are  classed  with  the  wicked,  and  that  Stone  itself  is  classed 
with  robbers  and  is  condemned.  Hence  we  have  no  hope  of 
salvation  except  in  the  Lord  alone.  Let  him  do  wonders.  He 
cannot  desert  this  Stone,  because  he  is  made  the  head  of  the 
corner."  * 

Some  persons  would  see  only  irony  in  this  extract,  except  in 
the  second  sentence.  But  a  person  who  does  not  have  a  theory 
to  defend,  will  see  in  the  second  sentence. ' '  It  pleases  very  much, ' ' 
a  strong  expression  of  approbation  couched  in  general  terms, 
and  in  what  follows  a  particular  criticism,  and  then  irony.  The 
interpretation  given  to  this  extract  by  Calinich,  and  approved  by 
Knaake,  both  capable  and  honest  scholars,  cannot  be  success- 
fully impugned:  "It  is  evident  that  here  he  (Luther)  repeats 
the  stricture,  previously  indicated,  viz.,  that  Melanehthon  had 
not  included  the  article  '  of  the  Pope  as  Antichrist. '  "  f 

This  interpretation  is  fully  sustained  by  what  Luther  wrote 
to  Justus  Jonas,  July  21st :  "I  now  understand  the  meaning 
of  those  demands  for  more  articles.  Satan,  forsooth,  still  lives, 
and  he  knows  very  well  that  your  Apology  Leisetreterin  con- 
ceals the  articles  about  purgatory,  about  the  worship  of  saints, 
and  especially  about  the  Pope  as  Antichrist.  Miserable  Emperor, 
if  he  called  this  Diet  for  the  purpose  of  hearing  Luther's  replies, 
as  though  they  did  not  have  enough  to  answer  in  the  present 
Apology."  J 

*  De  Wette,  IV.,  67. 

t  Calinich,  Luther  iind  die  Augsb.  Confession,  p.  .57.  Knaake,  Luther's 
Antheil,  p.  78. 

t  De  Wette,  IV.,  110.  The  Latin  is:  Apologiam  vestram  Leisetreterin 
flissimnlasse  articulos  de  iiurgatorio,  de  sanctorum  cultu,  et  maxime  de  Anti- 
christo  Papa.  Fliigel  defines  Leisetreter,  the  masculine,  as,  * '  sneaking  fel- 
low, spy,  eaves-dropper. ' '  Grieb :  '  *  Spy,  eaves-dropper,  a  sneak,  sneaking 
fellow. ' '  Grimm 's  Worterbuch :  Der  vorsichtig  auftritt,  gewendet  auf  einen 
menschen,  der  um  seines  vorteils  willen  nirgens  anz.ustoszen  strebt.  Luther 
associates  the  Leisetreter  with  the  insolent  spirits  and  hypocritical  priests 
(Heuchel-Pfaffen)      Grimm,  sub   rare. 


Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession.       203 

There  can  be  no  question  that  Luther  here  finds  fault  with 
the  omission  of  three  important  articles,   which  had  been  the 
subjects  of  his  fiercest  polemic  against  Rome;  and  there  is  no 
mistaking  the  meaning  of  the  \vord  Leisetreterin  in  this  con- 
nection, as  applied  to  the  Confession  as  a  whole.     He  applies  it 
as  an  opprobrious  epithet.     The  connection  in  which  it  is  used 
makes  this  too  plain  to  admit  of  question,  and  then  come  in  the 
standard  dictionaries  and  Luther's  use  of  the  word  in  other  con- 
nections bringing  irrefutable  corroboration.     Not  only  did  the 
Confession    move   too   wearily,    in    Luther's   estimation,    but   it 
omitted  three  important  articles.     He  would  have  had  the  Con- 
fession  move   as   an   open   and   aggressive   force,    and   include 
articles  against  the  assumptions  of  the  Pope,  against  the  doc- 
trine of  Purgatory  and  against  what  he  regarded  as  idolatry  in 
the  Roman  Catholic   Church.     But  at  the  same  time,  Ijuther 
recognizes    the    fact    that    the    Confession    contains    more — and 
this  was,  and  especially  in  its  revised  and  published  form,  is 
its  glory — than  the  Papists  could  answer.   And  as  to  the  deter- 
mination to  resist  further  concessions,  that  is  evidenced  by  the 
letter  which  he  wrote  to  Melanchthon  July  13th:     "For  my 
part  I  will  not  yield  a  hair,  nor  suffer  it  to  be  yielded.    Rather 
will  I  await  every  calamity,  since  they  are  proceeding  so  obstin- 
ately."*    He  declares  that  Christ  and  Beliel  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled, since  the  chief  contention  is  about  doctrines.    "The  Pope 
is  opposed  to  reconciliation,  and  Luther  begs  to  be  excused. ' '  t 
Indeed  Luther's  letters  of  July  and  August  show,  with  absolute 
conclusiveness,  that  he  regarded  reconciliation  as  impossible  and 
as  undesirable.     And  he   constantly  insisted  that  his   friends 
at  Augsburg  should  make  no  additional  concessions.     But  his 
instructions  were  not  heeded  as  they  should  have  been,  and  as 
a  consequence  the  historian  has  to  record  at  this  point  one  of 
the  most  humiliating  chapters  connected  with  the  entire  history 
of  Lutheranism,  namely,  that  of  the  so-called  compromise  efforts 
between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Catholics  during  the  month  of 
August,  A.  D.  1530. 

3.      Other  Opinions. 
But  there  are  other  opinions  of  Luther  in  regard  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  every  one  of  which,  in  so  far  as  we  have  been 
able  to  discover  them,  will  be  exhibited. 

July  6th  Luther  w^rote  to  Conrad  Cordatus  as  follows  :     ' '  By 
*  De  Wette,  IV.,  88.  t  See  De  Wette,   IV.,   85,   88,   114. 


204       Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession. 

order  of  the  Emperor  it  the  Confession)  was  produced  and 
read  before  the  whole  Empire,  that  is.  before  the  Princes  and 
Estates  of  the  Empire.  I  am  exceeding  glad  that  I  have  lived 
to  this  hour  in  which  Christ  has  been  preached  publicly  by  his 
illustrious  confessors  in  such  a  large  assembly  in  such  a  very 
beautiful  confession."'* 

On  the  same  day  he  wrote  to  Nicholas  Hausmann:  "Jonas 
has  written  me  that  our  Confession  (which  our  Philip  prepared) 
was  publicly  read  by  Dr.  Christian,  chancellor  of  our  Prince^ 
before  the  Emperor  and  the  Princes  and  Bishops  of  the  whole 
Empire. ' '  t  On  the  same  day  Luther  published  an  open  letter 
to  the  Cardinal  Archbishop  of  ]\Iayence.  of  whom  he  had  just 
written  to  Hausmann :  ' '  The  Archbishop  of  ]\Iayence  is  said 
to  be  very  eager  for  peace.""  This  letter  to  the  Archbishop  is 
hard  to  characterize.  Judged  by  our  democratic  standards,  it 
sounds  sycophantic.  But  we  dare  not  apply  our  standards  of 
etiquette  to  the  conditions  of  the  sixteenth  century.  The  letter 
allots  to  Albert  all  the  grand  titles  of  his  birth  and  offices,  as 
"Most  Reverend  Father  in  God,  Cardinal  Priest  of  St.  Chryso- 
genus,  Primate  of  Germany.  Administrator  in  Halberstadt,  Mar- 
grave in  Brandenburg,  etc..  My  Most  Gracious  Lord,"  and 
addresses  him  as  "]\Iost  Reverend,  ]\Iost  Illustrious,  High-born 
Prince.  Most  Gracious  Lord."  But  the  letter  exhibits  Luther's 
wonted  bitterness  against  the  Pope  and  his  determination  to 
stand  fast  in  his  teaching,  because  it  is  the  teaching  of  God's 
Word. 

After  briefly  reciting  the  reasons  why  the  letter  is  to  be  sent^ 
not  in  manuscript,  but  in  printed  form,  published,  the  writer 
proceeds  as  follows:  "I  humbly  pray  Your  Electoral  Princely 
Grace  graciously  to  receive  this  my  letter.  Since  Your  Electoral 
Princely  Grace  is  the  chief  and  highest  Prelate  in  Germany, 
and  can  do  more  than  anyone  else,  I  have  risen  above  my 
scruples,  and  address  Your  Electoral  Princely  Grace  most 
humbly  in  this  letter,  in  order  that  I  may  do  my  full  part,  and 
acquit  my  conscience  before  God  and  the  world;  and  should 
misfortune  and  God's  wrath  follow  (as  I  dreadfully  fear),  that 
I  may  be  without  blame,  as  one  who  has  sought  in  every  way 
to  promote,  and  has  offered  peace. 

"Doubtless  you  and  all  the  others  heard  the  Confession  pre- 
sented by  ours.  I  have  the  comforting  assurance  that  it  has  been 
so  composed  that  it  may  joyfully  saj^  with   Christ,  its  Lord, 

*De  Wette,  IV.,  71.  f  De  Wette,  IV.,  69;   Enders,  8:   81. 


Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession.       205 

(John  18:  23)  :  'If  I  have  spoken  evil,  bear  witness  of  the  evil, 
but  if  well,  why  sniitest  thou  me?"  It  shuns  not  the  light,  but 
can  say  with  the  Psalmist:  'I  will  speak  of  thy  testimonies 
before  kings,  and  shall  not  be  ashamed.'  Whosoever  doeth  the 
truth  comes  to  the  light,  that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest 
that  they  are  wrought  of  God. 

"On  the  contrary  I  can  easily  conceive  that  our  enemies  will 
not  accept  this  doctrine.  Much  less  will  they  be  able  to  refute 
it.  I  have  no  hope  that  we  will  be  united  in  doctrine.  They 
have  become  so  embittered  and  enraged,  that  they  would  go 
into  hell — which  stands  open  for  them — rather  than  yield  to  us, 
and  forsake  their  own  wisdom.  We  must  let  them  go.  We  are 
innocent  of  their  blood.  I  write  to  you  because  I  know  that  our 
opponents  cannot  refute  our  doctrine.  By  the  Confession  we 
clearly  show  that  we  have  not  taught  erroneously  and  falsely. ' '  * 

On  the  ground  that  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  Confes- 
sion and  held  by  the  Lutherans  is  true  and  Scriptural,  Luther 
pleads  with  the  Archbishop  to  exert  himself  to  the  end  that  the 
Lutherans  be  not  further  persecuted,  but  be  let  alone.  He  does 
not  seek  doctrinal  nor  practical  union  with  the  Catholics — for 
of  this  he  sees  no  hope — but  peace  in  separation.  He  points  to 
the  Confession  as  evidence  that  the  Lutheran  doctrine  is  not 
heretical. 

July  9th  Luther  wrote  the  Elector  of  Saxony  as  follows : 
"The  enemy  thought  they  had  accomplished  something  when, 
by  command  of  the  Emperor,  they  had  the  preaching  suppressed. 
But  the  miserable  people  did  not  perceive  that  by  the  written 
Confession,  which  was  delivered,  there  was  more  preaching  than 
ten  preachers  could  probably  have  done.  Isn  't  it  a  fine  piece  of 
wisdom  and  a  good  joke  that  when  IMaster  Eisleben  and  ours 
were  silenced,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  rose  up  with  the  Confes- 
sion and  preached  under  the  very  noses  of  the  Emperor  and  of 
the  M'hole  Empire,  so  that  they  had  to  hear,  and  could  not  reply  ? 
.  .  .  Christ  w^as  not  silenced  in  that  Diet,  and  in  their  mad- 
ness they  had  to  hear  from  the  Confession  more  than  they  could 
have  heard  in  a  year  from  the  preachers. ' '  t 
'  July  9th  Luther  wrote  thus  to  Justus  Jonas  :  ' '  The  first  and 
greatest  thing  is  that  Christ  was  proclaimed  by  a  public  and 
glorious  confession,  and  set  forth  openly  in  their  presence,  so 
that  they  cannot  boast  that   we   fled,   or   were   frightened,   or 

*  De  Wette,  IV.,  72  et  seqq. 
t  De  Wette,  IV.,  82. 


206        Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession. 

concealed  our  faith.     It  grieves  me  that  I  am  not  present  at  this 
beautiful  confession. ' '  * 

[  July  20th  he  wrote  to  Melanchthon :  "I  am  deeply  grieved 
I  that  I  cannot  be  with  you  personally  in  this  most  beautiful  and 
I  most  holy  confession. ' '  f 

An    examination    of   these   letters    in    the    original    makes    it 
evident,    at   once,   that   by    "public    and    glorious   confession/' 
"beautiful  confession,"  ''most  beautiful  and  most  holy  confes- 
sion," Luther  refers  not  to  the  written  Confession,  but  to  the 
heroic   act   of   confessing   Christ   in   the   midst   of  those   whom 
Luther  regarded  as  the  enemies  of  Christ.     And  in  support  of 
this  interpretation  we  refer  to  the  editors  of  Luther's  Letters, 
both  De  Wette  and  Enders,  who  have  the  word  written  thus: 
confession,  that  is,  they  begin  the  word  with  a  small,  and  not 
pv\dth  a  capital,  letter.     Yet  that  Luther  regarded  the  written 
I  Confession  with  high  favor,  that  he  joyfully  confessed  that  it 
'  contained  the  teaching  of  the   Scriptures,   that  he  is  said  in 
later  years  to  have  called  it  his  Confession  % — all  this  is  abund- 
\  antly  evident.    But  that  he  regarded  the  Confession  as  too  mild, 
as  having  conceded  too  much  to  the  enemy,  as  lacking  at  least 
three  important  articles,  and  that  he  called  it  Apologia  Leisetre- 
I  terin — and  he  is  not  knoAvn  to  have  revoked  any  of  these  stric- 
jtures- — all  this  is  documentarily  certain.     But  it  is  a  misfortune, 
as  it  is  also  a  fact,  that  many  of  the  older,  and  even  some  modern, 
historians  fixed  their  eyes  too  exclusively  on  Luther's  letter  of 
May  15th  to  the  Elector — "I  have  read  over  IMaster  Philip's 
Apology.     It  pleases  me  very  well"  § — without  knowing  or  car- 
ing to  know  that  that  letter  had  reference  to  the  first  crude 
draft  of  the  Confession,  yet  far  from  being  finished,  and  have 
quoted  from  Luther's  letter  to  the  Elector  of  July  9th, j|   and 
have  overlooked,  or  have  glozed,  the  "plus  satis  cessum  in  ista 
Apologia, ' '  ^  and  the  Scilicet  Satan  adhuc  vivit  et  bene  sensit 
apologiam  vestram  Leisetreterin  dissimulasse  articulos  de  purga- 

*  DeWette,  IV.,  85. 

t  De  Wette,  IV.,  103. 

t  This  is  reported  in  Luther 's  table-talk,  and  consequently  has  no  author- 
itative value.  It  did  not  come  from  Luther's  pen.  Very  properly  has 
Kolde  said :  ' '  And  he  (Luther)  could  once  say — in  a  wholly  casual  way — 
Catechismus,  tahellae,  Confessio  mea,  which  can  be  regarded  only  as  a 
strong  agreement  with  the  substance  of  the  Confession."  He  also  says 
that  this  speech  has  been  unduly  emphasized,  and  that  "Luther's  direct 
participation  in  the  composition  of  the  Confession  was  very  small. ' '  Ein- 
leitung  in  die  Symbolischen  Bilcher,  pp.  xx.,  xxi. 

§  De  Wette,  TV.,  17. 

II  De  Wette,  IV.,  82. 

T[  De  Wette,  IV.,  52. 


Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession.       207 

torio,  de  Sanctorum  cultu  et  maxime  de  Antichristo  Papa. ' '  * 
The  full  purview,  which  can  be  obtained  only  when  we  have 
before  us  all  that  Luther  wrote  in  regard  to  the  Confession, 
shows  indisputably  that  Luther's  approbation  of  the  Confes- 
sion was  not  unqualified.  His  approbation  is  expressed  in  ~\,  V 
general  terms,  but  in  several  instances  it  is  accompanied  by 
strictures  more  or  less  severe.  Hence,  the  evidence  is  conclusive 
that  he  did  not  regard  it  as  a  law  for  the  conscience,  and  that 
he  did  not  think  that  it  had  spoken  the  last  word  on  any  article 
of  the  Christian  faith,  and  that  he  did  not  think  of  binding  him- 
self to  the  letter  or  to  the  form  of  the  Confession.  Otherwise 
he  would  not  have  accepted  Melanchthon's  printed  editions  of 
the  Confession — all  of  them  Variatae — and  would  not  have  coun- 
selled the  revision  of  1540,  and  would  not  have  approved  it  and 
called  it  "the  dear  Confession."!  Luther  found  in  the  Con-  J,,^--^ 
fession,  in  all  of  its  editions,  the  substance  of  his  faith.  lie  I 
knew  that  it  was  evangelical  and  anti-papistical.  Hence,  he 
could  call  it  "our  Confession  which  our  Philip  hath  prepared," 
and  could  join  his  brethren  at  Schmalkald  in  1537  in  employing 
Melanchthon's  German  Variata  of  1533. t 

Thus  have  we  exhibited  all  the  knoMTi  facts  touching  Luther's 
relation  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  It  is  surprising  to  learn 
how  little  he  had  to  do  with  it  during  its  composition.  His 
letter  of  ^lay  15th  to  the  Elector  is  very  brief.  It  does  not 
express  any  great  interest  in  the  Confession,  nor  any  surprise 
that  Melanchthon  has  changed  the  Apology  into  a  Confession, 
nor  does  he  write  to  ]\Ielanchthon  a  single  word  about  the  Con- 
fession, nor  answer  his  letter  of  May  22d,  though  iMelanchthon 
in  that  letter  had  requested  a  judgment  on  the  Confession. 
And  when  he  writes  to  Lazarus  Spengler  that  he  has  the  affair 
well  in  hand,  and  that  a  new  conflict  has  been  begun,  it  is  now 
August  28th,  or  more  than  two  months  after  the  Confession  has 
passed  into  history.  Luther  had  far  more  to  do  with  affairs  at 
Augsburg  after  the  delivery  of  the  Confession,  than  he  had 
before  that  great  transaction.  And  it  was  not  imtil  September 
15th  that  he  wrote  to  Melanchthon:  "You  have  confessed 
Christ,  3"ou  have  offered  peace,  you  have  obeyed  the  Emperor, 
you  have  borne  injuries,  you  have  been  drenched  with  re- 
proaches, you  have  not  rendered  evil  for  evil,  in  a  word,  you 

*De  Wette,  TV.,  109,  110. 

t  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  October,  1898,  pp.  569  et  seqq. 

t  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  October,  1907,  p.  493. 


208        Luther's  relations  to  the  augsburg  confession. 

have  worthily  done  the  holy  work  of  God,  as  becometh  saints. 
Rejoice  in  the  Lord  and  be  glad,  ye  righteous ;  long  enough 
have  ye  been  sad  in  the  world.  Look  up  and  lift  up  your 
heads.  Your  redemption  draweth  nigh.  I  will  canonize  you  as 
faithful  members  of  Christ,  and  what  greater  glory  do  ye  seek? 
Is  it  a  small  thing  to  have  rendered  a  faithful  service  to  Christ  1 
to  have  conducted  yourself  as  a  member  worthy  of  Him?  Far 
be  it  from  you  that  the  favor  of  Christ  should  seem  so  small  to 
you."* 

Luther  was  not  inappreciative  of  the  great  work  that  had 
been  done  at  Aug.sburg.  But  had  he  written  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  he  would  have  made  it  stronger  and  sharper  in  its 
protest  against  Rome.  He  would  have  put  into  it  something 
of  the  fire  and  energy  that  appear  in  every  line  of  the  Schmal- 
kald  xlrticles.  He  then  already  knew  that  reconciliation  with 
Rome  was  impossible,  and  that  the  hour  for  conciliation  had 
past.  But  as  it  is,  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  Lutliemn  and  not 
un-Lutheran,  and  both  in  form  and  in  content  it  deserves  to  be 
known,  and  will  be  always  known  as  the  Fundamental  Confes- 
sion of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  He  who  subscribes 
it  as  his  own  confession  of  faith,  by  such  act  of  subscription 
defines  and  identifies  himself  as  a  Lutheran.  He  may  subscribe 
it  according  to  the  letter,  or  with  reference  to  the  system  of 
teaching  that  it  exhibits.  The  result  is  essentially  the  same. 
In  either  case  the  subscriber  has  his  center  in  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  faith  alone.  On  the  one  hand  he  differentiates 
himself  from  the  Roman  Catholic,  who  has  his  center  in  the 
Church,  with  its  priesthood  culminating  in  the  Pope.  On  the 
other  hand  he  differentiates  himself  from  the  Calvinist,  who  has 
his  center  in  the  absolute  decree  of  God.  according  to  which 
some  are  elected  to  eternal  life  and  all  others  are  reprobated  to 
eternal  death.  It  is  the  center,  or  the  central  principle,  that 
determines  the  system,  and  regulates  the  life  and  the  Christian 
experience  of  all  who  intelligently,  and  from  the  heart,  embrace 
the  system.  And  the  Lutheran  interpretation  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  must  be  learned  from  the  Christian  life  and  from 
the  theology  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  from  the  consensus  of 
Lutheran  teaching  for  almost  four  hundred  years,  and  not  from 
an  accidental  explanation  made  at  any  particular  time,  or  by 
any  individual,  or  by  any  company  of  individuals. 
*  De  Wette,  IV.,  165. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

THE    MELANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF   THE   AUGSBURG   CONFESSION. 

In  Chapter  VI.  we  learned  that  both  copies  of  the  Confession 
were  delivered  to  the  Emperor  immediately  after  the  German 
copy  had  been  read,  that  the  Emperor  handed  the  German  copy 
to  the  Elector  of  IMayence  to  be  deposited  in  the  Imperial 
Archives,  which  were  kept  in  that  city,  and  that  he  kept  the 
Latin  copy  b.v  him.  It  is  regarded  as  documentarily  *  certain, 
that  in  the  year  1540  the  IMayence  Original  was  sent  to  Dr.. 
John  Eck,  who  wished  to  compare  it  with  the  edition  of  the 
Confession  issued  by  Melanchthon  in  that  same  year.  It  is 
regarded  as  highly  probable  that  Eck  did  not  return  it,  and  that 
its  loss  dates  from  that  time,  for,  according  to  the  researches 
of  Weber,  when  in  1545  it  was  sought  at  Mayence  in  order  to 
be  sent  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  it  was  not  found.f 

The  Latin  Original,  in  Melanchthon 's  owtl  hand- writing, 
eventually  found  its  way  into  the  Imperial  Archives  at  Brus- 
sels, for  in  the  year  1562  it  was  seen  there  by  William  Lindanus, 
Bishop  of  Koermund,  and  by  him  and  Joachim  Hopper  it  was 
compared  with  the  edition  of  1531.  In  1569  it  was  still  in  Brus- 
sels under  the  care  of  Viglius  Zeiehem,  a  member  of  the  civil 
council.  February  18,  1569,  Philip  II.  of  Spain  ordered  Duke 
Alva  to  obtain  "the  book  of  the  Confession,"  "in  order  that 
they  (the  damned)  might  not  hold  it  as  a  Koran,"  and  to  bring 
it  with  him  to  Spain  when  he  returned  thither,  ' '  and  to  be  care- 
ful that  the  Original  be  given  him,  and  not  a  copy,  and  that  no 
other,  not  even  a  trace  of  it,  be  left,  so  that  so  pernicious  a 
book  may  be  forever  destroyed."  That  the  Confession  was 
given  to  Alva  is  shown  by  a  letter  from  Viglius  Zeiehem  to 
Joachim  Hopper. $     Hence,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  when 

*  See  von  Ranke,  3:  176,  note;  The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct.,  1S98,  p. 
565;  Kolde,  Neue  Augustanastudien  (Neue  Kirchliche  Zeitschrift,  1906), 
p.  139;  Einleitimg,  XXX. 

t  Kriiische  Geschichte,  II,  Bd.,  Vorrede. 

t  Illnstrissinms  Dux  a  me  hisee  diehus  nomine  Eegis  petit,  Originalera 
Confessionem  Augustanam  Anno  CICICXXX  Cffisari  oblatam,  quae  meae 
custodiae  ac  Arehivo  tradita  erat,  dignaque  omnino  est,  ut  sernetur,  quo 
haeretici,  qui  postea  multa  ei  asperserunt,  malitiae  suae  convineantur.  Given 
by  Kolde,  Neve  Augustanastudien,  ut  supra,  p.   74-1-.     Weher,- Geschichte, 

14  (209) 


210       TH1-:   MKLAXt  HTlIdN    KDITIOXS  DF  'I'lIK   .\r(;si;rR(;   COXKESSlOiX. 

Aiva  returned  to  Spain,  in  1373,  he  took  the  hated  doeiinient 
with  him.  and  that  it  was  destroj'ed  as  a  sacrifice  to  the  fanati- 
cism of  Philip.* 

But  whatever  may  be  the  minutiae  touching  the  history  of  the 
two  Originals  of  the  Augburg  Confession,  it  is  certain  that  the 
niost  thorough  searches  in  the  Imperial  Archives  at  Mayence, 
in  the  Imperial  Archives  at  Brussels,  in  the  Vatican  Library  at 
Rome,  and  in  several  archival  libraries  in  Spain,  have  failed  to 
bring  either  of  them  to  light.f  They  are  not  known  to  exist 
anywhere  in  the  world,  and  are  believed  to  have  been  destroyed. 
Neither  did  the  Protestants  make  an  official  and  certified  copy 
of  the  Confession  as  it  was  read  and  delivered.  Hence  there  is 
no  such  document  in  use,  nor  even  Icnown  to  exist,  as  the  original 
and  unaltered  xVugsburg  Confession,  a  distinction  that  should 
be  applied  only  to  the  Confession  in  that  form  in  which  it  was 
read  and  delivered,  though  the  words  are  scarcely  applicable  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  Confession  was  revised  and  changed 
up  till  the  last  hour  before  its  delivery.  But  the  words  original 
and  unaltered  may  be  allowed  in  an  official  and  diplomatic 
sense,  provided  they  be  applied  (as  they  were  intended  to  be 
applied  when  employed  by  the  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord in  this  relation)  to  the  Confession  in  the  form  in  which  it 
was  officially  read  and  delivered.  Any  other  use  of  the  words 
in  this  relation,  or  the  application  of  them  to  any  printed  edition 
of  the  Confession,  is  a  falsification  of  fact  and  of  history,  since 
every  known  printed  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  is 
known  to  be.  and  can  be  shown  to  be,  materially  different  from 
the  Augsburg  Confession  as  it  was  officially  read  and  delivered, 
June  25,  1530;  if  we  except  Die  unverdnderte  Augshurgische 
Konfession  deutsch  unci  lateinisch  nach  den  hesten  Handschriften 
aus  dem  Besitze  der  Vntcrzeichncr,  Kritischc  Ausgahe  (1901), 
constructed  by  Professor  Tschackert,  and  accepted  by  all  Augs- 
burg Confession  scholars  as  reproducing  "the  original  and  un- 
altered Augsburg  Confession"  with  a  high  degree  of  accuracy, 
and  consequently  as  discrediting  utterly  the  Textus  Receptus, 
German  and  Latin,  of  the  Book  of  Concord,  and  all  the  Melanch- 
thon.  and  all  other  printed  editions ;  though  this  Critical  Edition 
of  Tschackert  has  received  no  ecclesiastical  authorization  or 
sanction,  and  has  not  been  made  the  symbol  of  any  ecclesias- 

I.,   77.   See  also  Zrit.s<-lii-ift   fiir  Kirchengeschiclitf.   XXIX.   Band.   I.   Heft, 
pp.  81  et  seqq. 

*  See  Kolde,   l<!eue  Atipustanastudien,  ut  supra,   pp.    743   et   aeqq. 

t  Kirchenlexikon,  I.,  1645. 


THK  ;\IKLAN('irriI().N    EHITIONf^  OF  TH  K  AlU;sl5ri{(:   CONKKSSION.        211 

tical  bod}'.  But  it  has  great  historical  and  critical  value,  as  it 
shows,  if  not  verbally  and  literally,  yet  certainly,  to  a  high 
degree  of  accuracy,  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  it  was  read 
and  delivered,  June  25,  1530 ;  and  it  enables  us  to  settle  for- 
ever, in  its  essential  aspects,  the  hitherto  hazy  and  uncertain 
contention  over  the  Confessio  Invariata.  It  shows,  further, 
that  no  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  official  use  in 
the  Lutheran  Church  to-day  can  be  claimed  by  its  subscribers 
as  "that  first  and  nnaltercd  Augsburg  Confession,"  not  even  in 
a  technical  sense  as  over  against  the  Latin  Variata  of  1540, 
since  the  designation,  "that  first  and  unaltered  Augshurg  Con- 
fession" was  coined  to  stand  for  and  to  represent  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  as  it  was  read  and  delivered  at  Augsburg, 
June  25.  1530 — a  form  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  which  is 
not  known  to  have  been  seen  by  Protestant  eyes  since  it  was 
officially  read  and  delivered,  and  is  not  kno^^•n  to  exist  any- 
where in  the  world,  except,  to  repeat,  in  so  far  as  it  has  been 
restored  by  Professor  Tschackert  from  what  has  been  called 
"authentic  codices."  From  w^hich  it  must  follow,  of  course, 
that  there  is  no  such  document  in  ecclesiastical  use  to-day,  and 
never  has  been,  as  "that  first  and  unaltered  Augshurg  Con- 
fession," for  if  the  document  intended  by  that  designation  is  not 
knov^^l  to  exist  and  has  not  been  seen  by  Protestant  eyes  since 
it  was  read  and  delivered,  it  could  not  have  been,  and  cannot 
now  be.  in  ecclesiastical  use.  Hence  it  is  not  only  invidious, 
but  it  is  untrue,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  when  any  ecclesiastical 
body  says:  ''We  accept  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession," 
etc.*     We  find  the  phrase  unverdnderte  Augshurgische  Konfes- 

*  The  word  unaltered  witli  such  meaning  is  employed  in  the  Lichtetibery 
Bedenkeii,  Feb.  16,  1.576.  where  it  appears  thus:  Augspurgisclie  erste  ungeen- 
dcrtc  Confession.  Hiittor,  Concordia  Coneors,  Wittebergae,  1614,  p.  78b.  In 
the  Compendious  Form  of  Doctrine  in  (Miiller,  p.  .569)  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, Solid  Declaration,  we  have,  in  the  German:  Erste  ungeenderte  Augs- 
purgischc  Confession ;  in  the  Latin:  Augustana  prima  ilia  et  non  niutata 
Confessio.  We  liave  not  been  able  to  discover  the  first  use  of  the  word 
invariata  in  this  relation,  but  it  is  exactly  equivalent  to  non  mutata  and 
ungeenderte ;  and  that  by  "that  first  and  unaltered  Augshurg  Confession" 
the  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  the  editors  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord meant  the  Augsburg  Confession  "precisely  in  the  form  in  which  it  was 
committed  to  writing  in  the  year  1530,  and  presented  to  the  Emperor 
Charles  V."  (Formula  of  Concord,  .Jacobs,  p.  536),  is  proved  beyond  doubt, 
or  even  the  possibility  of  doubt,  by  their  own  solemn  asseverations  in  the 
Preface  to  the  Book  of  Concord  and  in  the  Preface  to  the  Form  of  Concord. 
See  Jacobs 's  Bool  of  Concord,  vol.  I.,  pp.  14  and  536;  the  New  Market 
edition  of  the  Boole  of  Concord,  pp.  93  and  593;  Muller's  Libri  SumboUci, 
tenth  edition,  pp.  12  and  569;  and  Hanne.  Hi.st.  Critiea  Augs.  Conf..  pp. 
18,  19.  They  even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  copies  of  the  Confession,  which 
have  been  preserved  in  the  archives  of  their  predecessors,  they  "caused  to 


212       THE  MELANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

sion  in  the  Instruction  given  to  the  Visitors  of  Electoral  Saxony 
in  1555.  But  here  the  word  unveninderte  has  reference  to  Mel- 
anchthon's  German  edition  of  the  Confession  issued  officially  in 
1555  for  this  Saxon  visitation.  See  below  (p.  222).  See 
Johannsen,  Die  Anfdnge  des  Symbolzwang ,  p.  67.   . 

1.     The  Editio  Princeps. 

Immediately  after  the  Confession  was  read  the  Emperor  re- 
quested the  Lutheran  Princes  to  refrain  from  publishing  it. 
They  promised  to  comply  with  his  request.  Biit  in  a  very 
short  time  six  editions  in  German  and  one  in  Latin  were  pub- 
lished surreptitiously.  They  are  called  the  Ante-Melanchthon 
editions.  They  have  no  official  or  diplomatic  value,  and  were 
so  carelessly  printed  as  to  seem  to  have  been  purposely  cor- 
rupted. Thereupon  Melanchthon  undertook  the  preparation 
of  an  edition  "revised  and  emended,"  using  as  he  tells  us,  "a 
copy  of  good  credit."  and  "adding  the  Apology  which  had 
been  also  offered  to  his  Imperial  Majesty."  * 

This  edition,  known  as  the  editio  princeps,  Latin  and  German, 

has  different  titles,  though  the  edition  is  one.j     The  Latin  title 

of  the  largest  number  of  copies  that  have  come  down  to  us  is 

as  follows : 

CONFESSIOFIDEI 

exhibita  inuictils.  Imp.  Carolo  V. 

Cael'ari  Aug.   in   Comicijs 

Auguflae, 

.\nno 

M.  D.  XXX. 

Addita   ell  Apologia  Confefiioaii. 

23eit>e,  ^Deubf* 

Plalm.    119. 

Et  loquebar  de   teltimonijs  tuis  in  con' 

I'pectu  Regum,    Sc  nan  confundebar. 

WITEBERGAE. 

b^'  compared  by  men  worthy  of  confidence  with  the  copy  which  had  been 

presented  to  the  Emperor  himself,  and  is  preserv^ed  in  the  archives  of  the 

Holy  Eoman  Empire."    But  they  took  into  their  Book  of  Concord  a  vicious 

I  bopj-  bf  a  German  manuscript  destitute  of  authority,  and  for  the  Latin,  Mel- 

I  anchthon's  second  edition. 

*  See  Preface  ad  Lectores.     There  is  no  Preface  ad  Lector es  to  the  Ger- 
man; editio  princeps.  '  • 
tG.  E.  XXVI.,  pp.  235  et  seqq.                                                          .... 


THE  MELANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AUG8BUR(i  CONFESSION.       213 

At  the  end  of  the  Apology  are  the  words:  Impressum  per 
Georgium  Rhaii,  I\r.  D.  XXXI. 

The  title  of  the  German  editio  princeps,  reprinted  from  the 
original,  two  copies  of  which  are  before  us,  is  as  follows: 

fantnu^  ke  ©to 
mtmxt  ^eiferlic^er 


5(polcQia  t>cr  (Sonfcffic. 


At  the  end  of  the  Apology,  given  in  the  German  translation 
of  Justus  Jonas,  on  the  opposite  page,  alone,  stands :  Gedruckt 
zu  Witteraberg  durch  Georgen  Rhaw.  Anno.  M,  D.  XXXI. 
This  bilingual  edition  of  the  Confession  and  Apology  is  in 
quarto  form.  Weber,  on  the  basis  of  a  confused  and  uncer- 
tain letter  written  by  Pistorius  to  Landgrave  Philip,  June  18, 
1561,  concluded  that  the  Confession,  both  Latin  and  German, 
was  printed  without  the  Apology,  and  privately  circulated  al- 
ready in  the  Autumn  of  1530.*  Bindseil  has  followed  Weber, 
and  has  dated  this  edition  anno  1530-1531. f  But  Professor 
Kolde  has  recently  shown,  on  the  basis  of  data  not  known  to 
Weber  and  Bindseil,  'Hhat  an  edition  of  the  Augustana  pro- 
ceeding from  Melanchthon  has  not  existed  from  the  year  1530, 
that  the  editio  princeps  was  first  published  in  the  Spring  (the 
end   of   April   or   the   beginning   of   j\Iay)    together  with   the 

*  Kritische  Geschichte,  II.,  11  et  seqq. 

t  C.  E.  XXVI.,  234.     Bindseil  notes  a  very  slight  difference — a  mere 

matter  of  spacing — in  the  titles  of  this  first  German  edition.  C.  R, 
XXYI.,  240. 


214     THE  mp:laiN('htii().\  editions  of  thk  A((;sBrH<;  co.vkession. 

Apology,  yet  in  such  a  way.  that,  inasmuch  as  the  German 
translation  of  the  Apology  by  Jonas  was  not  yet  finished,  the 
Latin  text  was  first  published  alone,  and  probabh'  the  recoUec- 
tion  of  this  fact,  namely,  that  the  work  at  the  beginning  came 
out  incomplete,  helped  to  create  the  report  about  an  earlier 
edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession."*  Though  Kolde  holds, 
as  is  evident  from  Melanchthon 's  Preface,  that  the  Confession 
began  to  be  printed  in  the  year  1530. 

But  as  regards  the  date  on  the  title-page,  both  Latin  and 
German,  namely,  ANNO  M.  D.  XXX.,  there  can  be  no  ques- 
tion that  that  marks  the  date  of  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  and 
'  not  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  edition,  as  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  that  date  appears  on  the  title  page  of  all 
the  Melanchthon.  and  of  very  many  other,  editions  of  the 
Confession.  And  when  we  consider  that  in  the  Preface  ^lel- 
anchthon  has  said:  "And  we  have  added  the  Apology  which 
was  also  offered  to  his  Imperial  ]\lajesty,"  we  have  a  clear 
proof  that  this  edition  Avas  not  published  in  the  Autumn  of 
1530,  for  we  know  that  the  Apology  was  not  completed  till  near 
!^  the  middle  of  April,  1531. f 

This — we  repeat  it  for  the  sake  of  emphasis  and  clearness 
— is  the  editio  'princcps  (first  printed  edition)  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  Latin  and  German,  with  the  Apology  in  Latin 
added  to  the  former,  and  with  the  Apology  in  Jonas 's  trans- 
lation added  to  the  latter.  It  is  the  private  work  of  INIelanch- 
thon.  There  is  not  in  the  Preface,  nor  in  any  other  writing 
that  has  come  down  to  us,  a  single  word  that  indicates  that 
Melanchthon  was  authorized  by  the  Elector  or  by  any  other 
per-son  to  publish  an  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
though  it  is  probable  that  the  Elector,  and  certain  that  some 
other  persons,  knew  what  was  being  done. J  Nor  does  it  seem 
to  have  occurred  to  ]\Ielanchthon  that  the  Confession  was  an 
official  document  in  such  a  sense  that  its  verba  ipsissima  dare 
'  not  be  changed.  §  lie  had  written  it  to  be  a  defence  and  vin- 
dication of  the  Lutherans  as  "professing  no  doctrine  contrary 
to  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  of  the  Catholic 
Church,"  as  he  says  in  the  Preface  to  this  edition.  That  the 
Catholic    theologians   had    expressed    dissatisfaction    with    por- 

*  Neue  Kirchliche  Zietschrift,  XVII.   Jahrgang,   Oct.,   1906,   pp.   729   rt 
siqq. 

t  See  Kolde,  nt  sui)ra,  pp.  7.33-4. 

t  See  KoMp,  nt  siiin-a,  p.  731.  <' 

§  \on  Kaiike.  vol.  3.  175.  vol.  5,  j>.  3"i3.  ' 


THE  MKLANCHTHOX  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AUfiSBl'IK;  COXKESSIOX. 


•215 


tions  of  it,  and  that  it  had  been  already  printed  and  circulated 
in  a  corrupt  form,  seemed  to  furnish  a  sufficient  reason  "to 
publish  a  revised  and  emended  edition"  (^lelanchthon's  Pi-e- 
face).  That  he  was  influenced  in  places  by  the  Catholic  Con- 
futation is  clearly  evident,  as  especially  in  Articles  XIII.  and 
XVIII.,  and  that  he  acted  generally  with  great  independence 
towards  the  text  of  the  Confession  as  officially  read  and  de- 
livered, is  also  evident,  though  the  changes  and  emendations 
are  in  very  large  part  only  redactional.  But  in  not  a  few 
places  the  changes  are  material,  and  do  materially  affect  the 
text  of  the  Confession,  so  that  Professor  Tschackert  is  per- 
fectly correct  when  he  says  :  ' '  Melanchthon  's  Latin  text  and 
that  of  the  Book  of  Concord  are  thus  with  entire  certainty  not 
the  Confessio  invariata  delivered  June  2r)th,  but  (/  private  ivork 
of  Melanchtlion."  * 

That  the  differences  in  texts  may  appear  evident  to  the  eye, 
we  place  the  most  important  of  them  in  parallel  columns,  and 
henceforth  write  the  word  invariata  thus:  ''Invariata." 


THE    MANUSCRIPT    TEXT. 

* '  Invariata. ' ' 
Art.  XIII.    The  Article  closes  with 
the  word  osU)iduiitiir. 


Art.    XVI 11.     The    Article    closes 
with  the  word  ' 'homieidium  etc." 


Art.  XXI.  in  Epilogue:  Tota  dis- 
sensio  est  de  paucis  quibusdam 
abusibus. 


MELANCHTHOX 'S    EDITIO    PRIXCEPS. 

Melanchthon  adds  the  damnatory 
anthithesis :  Damnant  igitur  illos 
qui  decent,  quod  sacramenta  ex  op- 
ere  operate  iustifieent,  nee  decent 
fideni  requiri  in  usu  sacramentorum, 
quae  credat  remitti  peccata. 

Melanchthon  adds  the  damnatory 
anthithesis :  Damnant  Pelagianos  et 
alios,  qui  decent,  quod  sine  Spiritu 
Sancto,  solis  naturae  %"iribus  possi- 
mus  Deum  super  omnia  diligere, 
item  praeeepta  Dei  facere  quoad 
substautiam  actuum.  Quanquam 
enim  externa  opera  alique  mode  etfi- 
cere  natura  possit-potest  enim  con- 
tinere  manus  a  f  urto,  a  caede :  tamen 
interiores  metus  non  potest  effieere, 
ut  timoreni  Dei,  fiduciam  erga  Deum, 
castitatem,  patientiam  etc. 

Sed  dissensio  est  de  quibusdam 
abusibus. 


Art.    XXIV.     Ad    hoc    praecipue  i        Ad  hoc  unum  opus  est  ceremonus, 
opus  est  ceremoniis,  ut  doceant  im-       ut   doceant  imperito>. 
peritos. 

^  Die   I'nreroeiidcrie  A.  ('..  ]>.  H]. 


216       THE  MELANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AlUiSBUKO  CONFESSION. 


Art.  XXVI.  Here:  The  words 
"die  festo"  are  followed  immedi- 
ately by  "Act.  XV." 


Art.    XXVI.      Here: 
iacere  pro  peccatis. 

Art.    XXVI.     Here: 

IDUS. 


Aut    satis- 


Chi'istianis- 


Quod  ieiu- 


Here  between  "die  festo"  and 
' '  Act.  XV. ' '  we  find  the  following : 
Item:  Si  mortui  estis  cum  Christo 
ab  dementis  mundi,  Quare  tamquam 
viventes  in  mundo  decreta  facitis: 
ne  attingas,  ne  gustes,  ne  con- 
sed  afflietiva  sint  opera  etc. 

Here :    Aut  iustifieari. 

Here:    Christiana  iustitia. 


Quod  ieiunia  non  naturae, 


Here: 

trectes? 

Here:    Ecclesias  cogere. 


Art.  XXVIII.    Here: 
nia   sint   opera   etc. 

Art.    XXVIII.      Here:      Ecclesiis 
imperare. 

After  making  this  exhibit  Professor  Tschackert  says:  "As  in 
all  these  places,  so  in  numerous  other  cases  all  the  authoritative 
codices  are  unanimous  against  Melanchthon.  Hence  it  is  cer- 
tain that  the  Latin  text  printed  by  Melanchthon  in  the  Autumn 
of  1530,*  and  taken  into  the  Book  of  Concord  in  1580,  or  in 
1584,t  is  not  the  text  of  the  Confessio  invariata."  P.  62. 

If  one  compares  the  editio  princeps  with  Professor  Tschack- 
ert's  Critical  Edition,  he  cannot  resist  the  conclusion  that  he 
has  here  an  altered  Augsburg  Confession.  The  attitude  to- 
ward the  dogmatic  tradition  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church 
is  significantly  altered.  Especially  is  this  true  in  the  condem- 
nation of  the  opus  operatum  in  Article  XIII.,  and  in  regard  to 
"the  substance  of  actions"  in  Article  XVIII.  But  to  our 
mind  the  most  significant  change  is  found  in  the  Epilogue  to 
Article  XXI.  Here  the  ^'Invariata"  has:  "Tota  dissensio 
est  de  paucis  quibusdam  abusibus. "  Now  if  the  Reformation, 
prior  to  1530,  Avas  only  a  dispute  about  a  few  abuses,  then  we 
have  utterly  misinterpreted  its  history  and  have  misread  its 
literature.  We  have  always  been  of  the  opinion  that  the  Reforma- 
tion in  its  initial  movement  at  "Wittenberg,  the  posting  of  The 
Ninety-five  Theses,  Avas  in  essence  a  doctrinal  revolt,  and  we  have 
always  held  that  the  Assertion  of  all  the  Articles,  The  Three 
Great  Reformation  Writings,  the  Formula  Missae,  the  Deutsche 
Messe,  the  Catechisms,  The  Visitation  Articles,  the  Loci  Com- 
munes, were  mainly  doctrinal  treatises,  written  in  antithesis  to 
much  of  the  doctrinal  teaching  that  prevailed  in  the  Roman 

*  Tschackert  should  have  written:  In  the  Spring  of  1531.  See  above 
from  Kolde. 

t  The  edition  of  1584  contains  the  miiheniic  Latin  text,  ibid.  60. 


THE  MELANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AUGf^BUKG  CONFESSION.       217 

Catholic  Church  at  that  time.  We  have  always  taken  offense 
at  what  w^e  read  in  the  Epilogue  to  Article  XXI.  of  the  editio 
princeps:  "Sed  dissensio  est  de  quibusdam  abusibus. "  There 
was  dissension  in  regard  to  certain  abuses,  but  we  must  change 
our  mind  radically  in  regard  to  the  Reformation  before  we  can 
reach  the  conclusion  that  the  entire  dissension  had  reference  to 
some  few  abuses.  But  so  says  the  "  Confcssio  Invariata." 

Turning  now  from  the  Latin  to  the  German  editio  princeps, 
Ave  find  that  this  differs  from  the  "Invariata"  in  about  four 
hundred  and  fifty  places,  though,  as  in  the  Latin,  the  vast 
majority  of  the  differences  are  purely  redactional.  But  some 
do  materially  affect  the  sense.  Article  IV.  in  the  editio  princeps 
has  been  entirely  rewritten,  and  has  been  amplified  from  eighty- 
six  words  in  the  "Livariata"  to  one  hundred  and  forty-one 
words.  In  literal  translation  Article  IV.  of  the  editio  princeps 
is  as  follows : 

''And  since  men  have  been  born  in  sin,  and  do  not  keep  the 
law  of  God,  and  cannot  love  God  from  the  heart,  it  is  taught 
that  we  cannot  merit  forgiveness  of  sin  by  our  work  or  satis- 
faction. Also  Ave  are  not  esteemed  righteous  before  God  on 
account  of  our  Avork,  but  Ave  obtain  forgiveness  of  sins  and 
are  accounted  righteous  before  God  for  the  sake  of  Christ  out 
of  grace,  through  faith,  so  that  Ave  receiA'^e  sure  consolation  in 
the  promise  of  Christ  and  believe  that  forgiveness  of  sin  is 
surely  given  us,  and  that  God  Avill  be  gracious  unto  us,  Avill 
esteem  us  righteous,  and  Avill  giA^e  eternal  life  for  the  sake  of 
Christ,  who,  b,y  his  death,  hath  reconciled  God,  and  hath  made 
satisfaction  for  sin.  He  Avho  thus  truty  believes,  obtains  for- 
giveness of  sin,  becomes  acceptable  to  God,  and  is  esteemed 
righteous  before  God,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  Rom.  III.  and  IV." 

Article  XIII.  in  the  "Invariata"  ends  Avith  und  den  glau- 
ben  dadurch  sterket.  In  the  editio  princeps  the  damnatory 
clause  is  added,  as  in  the  Latin.  In  Article  XVIII.  also  the 
damnatory  clause  is  added.  Important  changes  are  made  in 
Articles  XXVII.  and  XXVIII. 

Thus  jMelanchthon 's  German  editio  princeps  is  very  much 
varied. 

2.     Editio  Octavae  Formae  1531. 

As  early  as  June,  perhaps  even  earlier,  Melanchthon  began 
to  prepare  a  ncAv  Latin  edition  of  the  Confession  and  Apology. 
The  former  he  conformed  more  closely  to  the  Gennan  editio 
princeps  on  Avhich  he  seems  to  have  bestOAved  more  care  than 


218       THK  \rp:[,A.\('FITH()N    KDITIONS  OK  TIIK  Ar(;sP.CK(;   CONFESSION. 

(-11  tlie  Latin  cditio  princei).s.*  His  main  object  seems  to  have 
been  to  make  the  article  on  justification  in  the  Apology  more 
luminous.f  But  he  did  not  make  any  change  in  Article  IV.  of 
the  Confession.  A  very  important  addition  is  made  to  Article 
XII.  in  the  antithesis: 

EDITIO    PRINCEPS.  |  EDITIO  OCTAVAE  FORMAE. 

Rejiciuutur  et  isti,  qui  non  docent  Rejiciuntur  et  isti,  qui  non  doceut 

remissionem  peccatorum  per  fidem  j  remissionem  peccatoruni  per  fidem 
eontingere,  sed  jubent  nos  mereri  j  contingere,  sed  doceut  remissionem 
gratiam  per  satisfaetiones  nostras.       |    peccatorum    eontingere    propter    nos- 

j  tram  dilectionem  et  opera.  Rejiciun- 
tur  et  isti  qui  Canonicas  satisfac- 
tiones  docent  necessarias  esse  ad  red- 
imendas  poenas  aeternas,  aut  poenas 
purgatorii. 

In  Article  XXI..  in  addition  to  a  couple  minor  changes,  the 
following-  declaration  is  made  against  the  adversaries :  Nee  do- 
cent quod  sola  fide  propter  Christum  accipiamus  remissionem 
peccatorum,  which  marks  the  first  introduction  of  the  sola  fide 
into  the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  except 
as  it  appears  in  a  quotation  in  Article  VI. 

This  octavo  edition  very  generally  supplanted  the  editio 
edition  of  Luther's  Works  (Vol.  IV.,  pp.  191  et  seqq.)  in  1570, 
princeps.  It  was  received  as  the  "first  edition"  into  the  Jena 
an  edition  published  under  the  auspices  of  the  Weimar-Jena 
theologians  for  the  special  purpose  of  reproducing  Luther's 
Works  in  the  most  accurate  form  as  over  against  the  Wittenberg 
edition.  At  the  Naumburg  "Diet  in  1561,  this  octavo  edi- 
tion of  the  Confession  was  signed  and  sealed  by  the  Lutheran 
Princes  there  assembled  "as  the  original."  In  1569  it  was 
taken  into  the  Corpus  Jidium  edited  by  Chemnitz  and  often  re- 
published.! In  1571  it  was  taken  into  the  Corpus  Doctrinae 
Thuringicum,  which  was  published  by  the  Jena  theologians  as 
a  set-off  to  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  PJrilippicuin,  and  in  1580  it  was 
admitted  into  the  first  Latin  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord. 

*  Weber,  II.,  ])p.  68-91;  Hase,  Libri  Symbolici,  p.  XI.;  Francke,  Libri 
Symbolici,  p.  XXVII.,  note  10. 

t  C.  R.  II.,  p.  506.  In  the  Preface  he  changed  only  the  words  ante  duos 
menses  to  ante  semestre.  The  Preface  to  the  editio  princeps  begins  thus: 
Haec  eonfessio  prorsus  ignorantilius  prineipibus  qui  cam  Caesayi  exhibuerunt 
•ab  avido  aliquo  typngraj>ho,  acte  duos  menses  publica  est. 

t  See  Preface  to  the  Corpus  Julium,  dated  1576,  on  fol.  4.  That  this 
Corpus  ' '  was  published  in  print  in  the  year  1569 ' '  is  certain.  See  Reht- 
meyer,  Braunscliweig-Kirchen-Uistorie,  III.,  349.  See  also  pages  425,  429. 
Schlegei,  KircJien-und  Ixcformationsf/csclriclifr,  II.,  pp.  27'2  et  sip.qq.  Hase, 
p.  XII.,  note  6.     Francke,  p.  XXVII.,  note  10.     Walch,  Introductio ,  p.  84. 


THE  MELANCHTHON   EDITIONS  OF  THE  AlKJSP.URtt  CONFESSION.       219 

which  "was  published  in  the  name  of  the  Princes  and  the  Es- 
tates," and  it  was  appealed  to  by  the  authors  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  as  ''that  first  and  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession 
delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  at  Augsburg  in  the  year 
1530,  at  the  Great  Diet."— "A  proof  of  how  little  the  theolo- 
gians of  that  time  knew  of  ]\Ielanchthon 's  editions,  and  of  how 
little  they  were  able  to  distinguish  them  from  each  other," 
says  Weber.* 

3.     TJie  German  Variatae. 
1.     Melanchthon  was  as  little  satisfied  with  the  German  cditio 
princeps  as  he  was  with  the  Latin.     Weber  thinks  that  he  l)e- 
gan  already  in  1531  to  prepare  a  new  German  edition  of  the 
Confession,   shortly   after   he   had   published   the    octavo   Latin 
edition.!     However  this  may  be.  it  is  certain  that  a  new  Ger- 
man edition  was  finished  in  1532,  and  was  published  at  the  end 
of  that  year,  for  at  the  very  beginning  of  January,  1533,  I\Iel- 
anchthon  sent  a  book  to  Spalatin.   and  wrote:     "I  have  also 
added  the  revised  German  Apology.    I  have  revised  two  entire 
articles,  namely,  that  on   original  sin,   and  that  on  righteous- 
ness," t  that  is,  on  justification.     The  title  of  this  edition  is 
verbally  and  literally  identical  with  that  of  the  editio  princeps, 
except    that    after    the    word    Maiestat    we    have:      Auff    dem 
Reichstag     gehalten/     zu     Augspurg/     Anno     II.     D.     XXX.. 
Apologia   der   Confessio/   mit   vleis   emendirt.      The   place   and 
the  date  of  publication  do  not  appear  on  the  chief  title-page 
of  the  Confession.     But  on  the  special  title-page  that  precedes 
the  Apology  in  German  we  read:    Witeberg.     M.  D.  XXXITI. 
Then   at  the  end   of  the   Apology:    Gedruckt   zu  Wittemberg 
durch   Georgen   Rhaw.      This   edition   is   known   in   the   Bibli- 
ography  of   the    Confession    as   the    German   variata   of   1533. 
Sometimes  it  has  been  referred  to  as  the  first  German  variata. 

The  author  has  informed  us  Avhy  he  revised  the  Confession, 
which  is  still  frequently  called  Apology.  January  1,  1533,  he 
wrote  to  Camerarius:  "The  German  Apology  and  the  article 
on  righteousness  I  have  treated  more  sharply. "  ^  A  day  or  so 
later  he  wrote  to  Spalatin:  "I  send  you  the  Pastor.  .  .  . 
I  have  also  added  the  revised  German  Apology.  I  have  re- 
vised (retexui)  two  entire  articles,  that  on  original  sin  and  that 
on    righteousness.      I    request   you   to    examine   them.      I    liope 

""  KritLsche   Geschichte.  IT..  98   cf  .spqq- 

t  Kritische   GescMchie,  II..   o-j. 

t  C.  R.  II.,  625.      See  also     619.      ('.    K.    XXYI.,    69S. 

i  C.  R.  II.,  624. 


220      THE  MELANOimiON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AUG.SBUR«  CONFESSION. 

thej^  will  be  profitable  to  pious  consciences.  For  I  have  illu- 
mined, as  it  seems  to  me,  most  clearlj^,  the  subject  of  righteous- 
ness," that  is,  of  justification.* 

Turning  now  to  the  Articles  of  Faith  in  this  new  German 
edition  of  the  Confession,  we  find  that  in  Article  II.,  Of  Origi- 
nal Sin,  at  the  end  of  the  thesis,  instead  of  "Who  are  not 
through  baptism  and  the  Holy  Spirit  born  again,"  we  have 
"Who  are  not  born  again  by  baptism  and  faith  in  Christ 
through  the  Gospel  and  the  Holy  Spirit ' ' ;  while  more  than  half 
of  the  anthithesis  is  rewritten  and  materially  changed.  Change 
has  been  also  made  in  Article  XIX.,  Of  the  Cause  of  Sin, 
though  it  is  not  extensive  nor  of  great  importance.  But  tak- 
ing all  the  changes  together  we  find  that  the  articles  on  sin 
have  been  greatly  illumined.  And  as  for  Article  IV.  we  find 
that  it  has  been  entirely  rewritten,  and  has  been  enlarged  to 
about  six  times  the  size  of  the  corresponding  article  in  the 
"Invariata"  and  in  the  Textus  Receptus  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, and  to  about  four  times  the  size  of  the  Article  in  the 
German  editio  princeps. 

In  this  Variata  the  author  declares  that  "this  is  the  chief 
article  of  faith,  that  forgiveness  of  sins  is  bestowed  without 
merit  on  our  part,  for  the  sake  of  Christ."  As  a  statement  of 
justification  "alone  through  faith,  without  merit,"  this  article 
is  not  surpassed  in  clearness  and  compactness  by  any  other 
statement  of  the  doctrine  in  the  entire  field  of  Lutheran  the- 
ology. Hence,  as  an  article  of  faith,  it  is  greatly  superior  to 
Article  IV.  in  the  earlier  editions  and  in  the  "Invariata." 

There  are  also  important  changes  by  expansion,  elaboration 
and  addition  in  Articles  V.,  VI.,  XII.,  XIII.,  XV.,  XX.,  and 
it  seems  as  though  they  had  been  all  made  for  the  purpose  of 
throwing  light  on  and  of  adding  strength  and  clearness  to  the 
doctrine  of  "righteousness."  We  thus  have  a  clear  perception 
of  ]Melanchthon 's  reasons  for  revising  the  Confession  again  in 
1532.t 

As  regards  Articles  IX.,  X.,  XI.,  there  are  no  changes  ex- 
cept in  mere  matters  of  orthography.  In  Article  XVIII.,  in- 
stead of :  "  We  cannot  keep  the  high  commandments  in  the 
heart,"  we  have:  "We  cannot  keep  the  high  commandments 
in  the  heart  without  the  Holy  Spirit,"  which  adjusts  the  an- 
tithesis more  accurately  to  the  thesis:  "Without  the  grace, 
assistance  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

*  C.  E.  II.,  625.  t  See  Kolde,  Einleihmg,  p.  xxiii. 


THE  !\IKLAXCHTHON  EDITIONS  OP'  THE  AITGSBI'KG  COXFESSION.       221 

This  first  German  Variata  was  reprinted  at  Tiibingen  in 
1535.  Bindseil  says:  "There  is  no  doubt  that  the  theologians 
assembled  at  Schmalkald  in  1537  employed  this  edition."* 
This  edition  was  taken  into  the  Wittenberg  edition  of  Luther's 
Works  (Vol.  IX.),  and  was  placed  in  the  Corpus  doctrinae 
Philippicum  (1560),  in  the  Corpus  Pomeranicum  (1564),  and  is 
noted  in  the  Index  as  the  "Confession  .  .  .  delivered  to 
his  Imperial  ^Majesty  at  the  Diet  held  at  Augsburg  in  the  year 
3530."  In  the  Schmalkald  Articles  it  is  called:  "The  Articles 
of  the  Confession  presented  to  the  Emperor  at  the  Diet  of 
Augsburg. ' '  t 

2.  In  the  year  1540  ]\Ielanchthon  published  a  German  edition 
of  the  Confession  in  octavo  form.  The  title  is  literally  and 
verbally  identical  Avith  the  preceding,  except  that  in  this  we 
have  oder  instead  of  odder  and  Anno  1530  instead  of  Anno 
M.  D.  XXX.,  and  at  the  bottom  of  the  page :  Anno  M.  D.  XL. 
Of  this  edition  Bindseil  says :  "In  which  month  this  edition 
was  published  cannot  be  definitely  determined,  inasmuch  as  no 
mention  of  it  is  found  in  Melanchthon 's  letters..  Since  at  the 
Diet  of  Worms,  which  was  opened  Nov.  25,  1540,  it  was 
delivered  Nov.  30th,  to  the  Catholics  (for  which  reason  it  is 
preserved  in  the  Mayence  Chancery),  it  must,  of  course,  have 
been  finished  before  that  Diet. ' '  t  Weber  says :  ' '  This  edition 
has  one  and  the  same  arrangement  with  that  of  1533.  Rhau 
printed  it  wdth  the  same  letters  even,  and  they  agree  almost 
throughout,  line  for  line  and  page  for  page,  though  on  the  last 
sheet,  F,  the  lines  have  been  somewhat  changed."  §  The  differ- 
ences in  the  two  editions,  as  noted  by  Weber  and  exhibited  by 
him  in  parallel  columns,  consist  of  a  few  printer's  errors  and 
of  nine  readings  that  are  peculiar  to  the  edition  of  1540,  though 
these  do  not  in  any  way  change  the  sense.  The  fact  is,  this 
edition  is  simply  a  corrected  reprint  of  the  edition  of  1533. 

3.  In  this  same  year  (1540)  there  appeared  an  edition  in 
quarto  form.  The  title  is  identical  in  words  with  the  preced- 
ing, except  that  instead  of  Anno  M.  D.  XL.,  we  read:  Ich  rede 
von  deinen  Zeuguissen  fur  Konigen.  Und  scheme  mich  nicht. 
Wittemberg,  1540.  Of  this  edition  Weber  says:  "After  a 
careful  collation  with  the  two  preceding  editions,  I  have  found 
that  in  printing,  not  the  edition  of  1533,  but  the  octavo  edi- 
tion of  1540,  has  been  followed.     For  it  repeats  not  only  the 

*  C.  E.  XXVI..  699.     See  Weber,  II.,  59  et  seqq.     f  C.  R.  III.,  286.  , 
tC.  E.  XXVI.,  707;  Weber,  ^lt  supra,  II.,  67.         §  Ut  siopra,.  11.,  64. 


222       THE  MELANCHTHOX   KDITIONS  »»F  THK  AUCSIiriUi  CONFESSION. 

readings  that  are  peculiar  to  tliis,  and  that  distinguished  it 
from  that  of  1533,  but  even  many  of  its  typographical 
errors. ' '  * 

Weber  then  places  the  variations  of  the  three  editions  in 
parallel  columns.  But  none  of  these  changes  the  sense  or 
amplifies  the  form.  He  finds  that  the  quarto  edition  of  1540 
is  more  accurately  printed  than  the  octavo  edition  of  the  same 
year. 

4.  In  1550  appeared  an  octavo  edition  at  Wittenberg  printed 
by  Peter  Seitz.  The  title  is  identical  Avith  the  two  preceding, 
except  that  instead  of  Bekantnus,  we  have  here  Bekantnis,  and 
at  the  bottom,  1550.  This  edition  is  a  reprint  from  the  octavo 
edition  of  1540,  though  it  has  a  few  readings  that  are  different 
from  the  edition  of  1540,1  but  these  do  not  in  any  manner 
change  the  sense.  This  edition  also  has  the  Apology^  as  trans- 
lated by  Jonas,  appended. 

5.  In  the  year  1555  an  edition  in  quarto  was  printed  at 
Wittenberg  by  George  Rhau  's  Heirs.     The  title  is  as  follows : 

Confessio  oder  Bekentnis  des  Glaubens/  Durch  den  durch- 
leuchtigsten/  hochgebornen  Fiii-sten  und  Herrn/  Herrn  Johans 
Hertzogen  zu  Sachssen/  Chiirfiirsten  &c.,  und  etliche  Fiirsten 
und  Stedte/  uberantwort  Keiserlicher  ]\Iaiestat/  auff  dem 
Reichstag/  gehalten  zu  Augspurgk/  Anno  1530. 

l"nd  dieser  Confession  Repetitio/  geschrieben  von  wegen  des 
Concilij  zu  Trident  Anno  1551. 

Tnd  durch  den  durchleutichtigsten/  hochgebornen  Fiirsten 
und  Herrn/  Herrn  Augustum  Hertzogen  zu  Sachssen,  Chiir- 
fiirsten &c.,  von  Avegen  der  Visitation  jtzt  wider  in  druck 
verordnet/  Anno 

1 555 

witte:\[berg. 

This  edition,  as  is  declared  on  the  title-page,  was  ordered  by 
the  Elector  of  Saxony  for  use  in  the  visitation  of  the  churches 
in  the  year  1555. J  Weber  says  that  this  edition  was  introduced 
i-very where  in  the  Electorate. §  It  differs  in  only  a  few  places, 
and  that  insignificantly,  from  the  octavo  edition  of  1540. !j 

This  edition  is  not  accompanied  by  the  Apology. 

*  Ut  supra,  II.,  68. 
t  See  C.  R.  XXVI.,  713. 

J  This  edition  was  held  to  be  unveriinderte,  "unaltered."  Johaiin8en, 
Aiifoiiqe  des  Symhohwaiig,  p.  67. 

§  Ut  supra,  II.,  72-75.     C.  R.  XXVI.,  714-716. 
I  See  Weber,  vt  supra,  II.,  73. 


THE  MELANCHTHOX   ED1TI()N,<  of  the  AUGt^BUKG  CONFESSJON.        223 

■6.  In  1556  an  edition  in  octavo  form,  with  the  Apology,  was 
published  by  George  Khan's  Heirs.  The  title  is  verbally  iden- 
tical with  that  of  1550.  except  that  after  "Witteraberg"  we 
have  1556.  It  is  a  reprint  of  the  octavo  edition  of  1540,  with 
pages  numbered  alike  and  for  the  most  part  agreeing  line  for 
line.* 

7.  In  1558  George  Khan's  Heirs  issued  an  edition  with  title 
verbally  identical  with  that  described  above  under  "5,"  except 
as  to  date.  AYeber  says  of  it:  "It  is  a  mere  reprint  of  the 
Visitation  edition  of  1555,  and  agrees  with  this  almost  through- 
out line  for  line  and  page  for  page."! 

These  seven  German  Variatae,  all  printed  at  Wittenberg,  are 
noted  and  described  by  Bindseil  as  ]\Ielanchthon  editions.t 

The  last  six  are,  substantially,  reprints  of  the  edition  of  1533. 
In  doctrine  they  do  not  differ  from  each  other  by  the  breadth 
of  a  hair.  In  form  they  differ  much  in  orthography  (since 
during  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  the  orthography 
of  German  words  was  very  arbitrary)  and  occasionally  in  what 
are  technically  called  "readings"  (Lesarten),  such,  in  general, 
as  we  find  in  the  best  class  of  New  Testament  codices. 

To  be  convinced  of  this,  namely,  of  the  complete  agreement 
in  doctrinal  teaching,  and  of  the  variety  of  spelling,  and  of  the 
occasional  difference  in  i-eadings,  in  these  Variatae,  we  have 
only  to  consult  the  text  of  the  quarto  edition  of  1540,  as  re- 
printed by  Bindseil  with  the  variants  of  the  other  variatae  edi- 
tions, printed  in  the  margin. §  Hence,  if  we  compare  these  seven 
Variatae,  taken  all  together  as  a  class,  with  the  editio  princeps, 
we  find  exactly  that  condition  of  things  which  we  have  described 
above — not  a  different  doctrine,  but  the  same  doctrine  elabor- 
ated in  certain  most  important  articles,  clarified  and  strength- 
ened, rendered  more  pronouncedly  Lutheran,  and  more  decidedly 
antithetical  to  the  then  current  teaching  of  the  Koraan  Catholic 
Church.  Of  this  no  one  can  be  in  doubt  for  a  moment  who  wall 
compare  these  Variatae  with  the  editio  princeps,  to  say  nothing 
about  the  German  Textns  Receptus  and  the  ''Invariata."  Hence, 
from  the  standpoint  of  doctrinal  clearness  and  of  Lutheran  dis- 
tinctiveness, it  cannot  but  be  regarded  as  a  great  misfortune  that 
these  German  Variatae,  doctrinally  identical,  which  for  nearly 

*  See  Weber,  ut  supra,  II.,  74,  7.5.       Also  C.  E.  XXVI.,  717-719. 

t  Ut  .nipra,  II.,  77. 

tC.  E.  XXVI.,  695-722. 

I  C.  B.  XXVI.,  723  €t  segq.     Compare  538  et  seqg. 


224       THE  MELANCHTHOX  EDITIONS  OF  THE  Al'GSBUKC  CONFESSION. 

fifty  years  had  supplanted  the  editio  princeps,  were  themselves 
supplanted  by  the  Textus  Receptus,  which  was  taken  from  a 
manuscript  "without  authentic  value,"  and  which  "is  through 
and  through  inaccurate, ' '  * 

In  the  qualities  named  above  it  cannot  be  denied  that  these 
German  Variatae  greatly  surpass  the  editio  princeps,  to  say 
nothing  about  the  Textus  Receptus  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
and  the  "Invariata."  And  it  may  be  safely  opined  that  had  the 
authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  the  Elector  August  had 
as  much  critical  acumen,  and  as  much  historical  knowledge  of 
the  "Invariata"  and  of  the  different  IMelanchthon  editions  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  they  had  desire  to  conciliate  the 
Flacianists,  they  would  not  have  made  the  blunder  they  did 
when  they  wrote  the  words :  ''  TJiat  first  and  unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession./'  and  then  took  an  unauthentic  and  thoroughly  in- 
accurate text  into  the  Book  of  Concord. f 

Moreover,  these  Variatae  show  that  in  the  twenty-six  years 
that  intervened  between  1532,  when  he  prepared  the  first  German 
Variata,  and  the  year  1558,  when  he  published  the  second  author- 
ized edition  (see  "7"  above),  Melanchthon  made  no  changes 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession,  which  is  prima  facie  evidence 
that  he  was  not  conscious  of  any  doctrinal  change  in  himself. 
Nor  even  when  engaged  in  preparing  the  edition  of  1533  does 
he  indicate  or  intimate  that  he  wishes  to  introduce  any  new 
views  of  doctrine.  He  only  wishes  to  throw  more  light  on  the 
Confession,  and  to  malce  the  article  on  Justification  more  accu- 
rate, and  to  make  that  article  and  that  on  Sin  "profitable  to 
pious  consciences."! 

4.     TJie  Latin  Variata  of  1540. 

There  is  evidence  that  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  when  in 
1535  IMelanchthon  revised  the  Loci,  he  was  at  the  same  time 
engaged  in  revising  the   Confession  in  Latin. §     Bindseil  is  of 

*  Tschackert,  p.  61. 

t  For  reasons  not  fully  known  the  Elector  August  of  Saxony,  in  the  year 
1576,  sent  to  Mayence  and  reqviested  the  Archbishop  of  Mayence  to  send 
him  a  copy  of  ' '  the  original  Augsburg  Confession  as  it  had  been  delivered 
in  German  in  the  year  1530. ' '  A  copy  of  the  Confession  was  sent  under 
the  seal  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Archbishop.  But  it  was  not  a  copy  of  "the 
written  original  Confession,"  but  a  copy  of  a  manuscript  which  had  been 
made  before  the  Confession  had  been  signed,  and  which,  consequently,  has 
no  authentic  value.  ' '  The  officials  of  the  Mayence  Archives  had  deceived 
the  Archbishop  of  Mayence  and  the  Elector  of  Saxony."  Tschackert,  ut 
supra,  p.  60,  and  Weber,  ut  supra,  I.,  pp.  122  et  seqq.;  Goschel,  p.  48.  A 
copy  of  an  unauthentic  uiauuscri])t  was  put  in  the  Book  of  Concord. 

i  C.  R.  XXYI..  698.     Weber.  II..  p.  10.3. 

§  C.  R.  XXVI..  340-2.  ;• 


THE  MELANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AltiSHUHG  CONFESSION.       225 

the  opinion  that  the  revised  Latin  Confession  was  also  printed 
in  1535.*  Caspar  Peucer,  ]\Ielanchthon 's  son-in-law,  says  that 
it  was  written  in  the  year  1538.  shortly  before  the  Diets  of 
Worms  and  Ratisbon,  and  that  it  "was  ordered,  revised  and 
approved  by  Luther,  and  that  it  was  necessary  that  it  be  written 
on  account  of  the  adversaries,  who  had  found  fault  with  many 
things  that  needed  to  be  explained  in  order  that  the  occasions 
and  the  reasons  for  such  cavils  might  be  removed."!  Nicholas 
Selneecer,  one  of  the  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  says: 
"The  later  Confession  was  revised  in  1538,  and  was  read  over 
and  approved  by  Luther,  as  witnesses  still  living  affirm. ' '  t 

The  object  of  the  revisions,  as  stated  by  Melanchthon  himself, 
was  "to  throw  more  light  on  numerous  discussions,"  and  "to 
make  it  better  in  the  article  on  justification,"  and  to  bring  into 
clearer  distinctness  the  proposition  that  "We  are  justified  by 
faith  alone."  § 

But  as  no  copy  of  this  varied  Wittenberg  edition,  bearing  date 
1535,  or  1538,  is  known  to  exist,  it  may  be  fairly  concluded  that 
it  was  not  published  in  either  of  these  years. 

This  varied  edition,  quarto  in  form,  was  published  at  Witten- 
berg under  the  following  title : 

CONFESSIO 

FIDEI    EXHIBITA 

INVICTISS.    IMP.    CAROLO 

V.  Caefari  Aug.  in  Comicijs 

A  V  G  V  S  T  AE. 

ANNO.     M.    D.    XX  X 

Addita  eft  Apologia    ConfefTi: 
onis  diligenter  recognita. 

PSALMO.      CXIX. 

Et  loquebar  de  teftimonijs  tu:s  in 

confpectu   Ecgnim,   et  non   con- 

fundebar. 

VITEBERGAE.     154  0. 

*  C.  R.  XXVI.,  341.     See  Tlie  Luth.  Quarterly,  1898,  560. 
f  Epistola  Dedicatoria,  Witt.  Edition  of  Melanchthon 's  Opera, 
t  Cataloqus  Brevis,  fol.  97. 
§  C.  R.  XXV.,  340-342. 


V? 


226       THE   .Mi;i,AN(  HTHON    KDITIO.NS  OF  THl':   AlfiSHrHi;   CO.NM^'KSSION. 

The  Confession  is  followed  by  the  Apology,  at  the  end  of 
which  we  read:  I.MPRP:SSUI\r  VITEBERGAE  per  Georginm 
Rhan.  ^I.  D.  XL.  And  thongrh  it  is  said  in  the  main  title  that 
the  Apology  "has  been  carefnlly  revised,"  yet,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  ]Melanchthon  never  carefnlly  revised  the  Apology  after 
1531,  and  the  Apology  printed  with  this  edition  of  the  Confes- 
sion is  the  same  as  that  printed  with  the  octavo  edition  of  1531,* 
a  very  few  things  excepted. 

This  Latin  edition  of  the  year  1540  is  known  via  oninciitiae 
as  the  Confessio  Augustana  Variata.  In  form  it  differs  greatly 
from  the  Latin  eclitio  prince ps,  but  Melanchthon  himself  declared 
officially  at  the  Diet  of  Worms,  January,  1541,  that  "the  mean- 
ing of  the  things  is  the  same,  though  in  the  later  edition  some 
things  have  been  either  more  mildly  expressed  or  have  been 
better  explained."  t  Bindseil  has  well  stated  the  case  as  follows: 
"Very  many  Articles  of  Faith,  especially  IV..  V.,  VI.,  XVIIL, 
XX..  XXL.  have  been  more  copiously  treated.  Articles  XL, 
XII.,  have  been  transposed,  and  Article  X.  has  been  changed. 
Also :  The  first  five  articles  on  the  Abuses  that  have  been  cor- 
rected, have  been  not  only  changed,  but  have  been  arranged  in 
a  different  ordei-.  In  the  earlier  IMelanchthon  editions  they  are 
arranged  as  follows :  I.  Of  both  Species ;  II.  Of  the  Marriage 
of  Priests;  III.  Of  the  Mass;  IV.  Of  Confession;  V.  Of  the 
Difference  of  Meats.  In  this  edition  of  1540  their  order  is  as 
follows:  I.  Of  the  ]Mass:  II.  Of  Both  Kinds  of  the  Sacrament; 
III.  Of  Confession ;  IV.  Of  the  Distinction  of  Meats  and  of  like 
Papal  Traditions;  V.  Of  the  Marriage  of  Priests."  t 

The  change  in  Article  X.  can  be  best  shown  by  a  parallel  ex- 
hibition : 

"■Invariata,"    editio   princeps    and  l  variata  OP  1540 :  . 
EDiTio  OCTAVAE  FORMAE  of  1531:          |        Dq    Coena    Domini    decent,    quod 
De  Coena  Domini  docent,  quod  cor-  cum   pane   et   vino   exhibeantur   cor- 
pus et  sanguis  Christi  vere  adsint,  et  pus   et    sanguis    Christi,   vescentibus 
distribuantur    vescentibus    in    coena  in  Coena  Domini. 
Domini,  et  improbant  seeus  docentes.  j 

Here  is  change  in  form,  indeed,  but  there  is  not  the  slightest 

*C.  R.  XXVI.,  345.  Weber,  IL,  103-S.  Franeke  says:  "  8ed  pauca 
tantuni  secus  habent  atque  in  ed.  ]531,  8.  Quare  cum  Hcise  non  dubitavcrim, 
quin  Mel.  confessionem  intellexit,  quum  a.  1533.  Ant.  Cor  vino  scripsit: 
'  Latinam  apologiam  totam  retexam. '  "     P.  xxxvi.,  note  15. 

■;-  C.  R.  IV.,  43,  47.     See  The  Luth.  Quarterly,  1898,  p.  565. 

$  C.  R.  XXVI.,  345.  In  Article  XVIII.,  instead  of:  Per  verbum  spiritus 
eanctus  concipitur,  we  have:  Sanctum  spiritum  eoncipimus,  cum  verbo  Dei 
assentimur. 


TlIK   MKLA.XCiri'HON   KDITIONS  OF  THK  AUGSBUmj  COiNKKSi^ION.        227 

1  reason   to   believe   that   ]\Ielanehthon    meant   to   present   a   new 
I  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  or  that  he  meant  to  favor  or  to 
]  allnre  the  Saeramentarians.     In  the  Confession  as  read  before 
,  the  Emperor,  and  in  the  two  earlier  Latin  editions,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  repel  Eck's  charge  of  sacramentarianism.    Hence  the 
J  "et  improbant  secns  docentes. "  *   In  the  "Iiivariata"  and  in  the 
older  editions  the  tenth  Article  had  not,  either  expressly,  or  by 
;  implication,  rejected  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  nor  had 
'  it  expressed  any  dissent  therefrom,  and  the  Catholics  had  inter- 
preted it.  as  they  still  do,  in  the  sense  of  Transubstantiation. 
pWere  they  to  be  left  forever  nnder  the  impression  that  the  Lutli- 
1  eran  fundamental  Confession  favored,  or  at  least  did  not  differ 
from,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of 
rithe  Lord's  Supper?  t    And  as  regards  the  Zwinglians  and  their 
theological  confreres  it  must  be  recalled  that  in  the  year  1536  the 
Wittenbergers  and  the  theologians  of  South  Germany  had  come 
to  an  agreement  on  the  Lord's  Supper  and  had  together  sub- 
scribed the  Wittenberg  Concord, t  in  which  in  the  Article  on  the 
; Lord's  Supper  we  have  the  same  pivotal  words,  exhiheri  and 
cum  pane  et  vino,  which  particularly  distinguish  the   Variata 
from  the  "Invaruiia,"  and  from  the  older  Latin  editions:  and 
sacramentarianism  was  no  longer  in  the  purview.  Hence  there  was 
absolutely  no  call  for  the  "et  improbant  secus  docentes."    More- 
OA'cr.   by   exchanging  the   word   diairibuantur  for   exJiiheantur, 
Melanchthon  brought  the  Confession,  as  it  regards  the  admin- 
istration  of  the  sacraments,   into  harmony  with   itself,   for   in 
Article  VIII.,  we  have  this  very  same  identical  word  exJiiheantur 
in  all  the  Latin  editions,  where  it  is  said:    "The  sacraments  and 
the  AVord  on  account  of  the  appointment  and  command  of  Christ 
are  effective  although  administered  (exhiheantur)  by  evil  men." 
and  in  Article  XIII.:     "Which  are  presented  (exhihrantur)  by 
the  sacraments."     Again  and  again  is  the  same  word  employed 
in  Article  VII.,  Of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, in  all  which  places,  as  well  as  in  Article  X.  of  the  Yariata, 

""They  disapprove  those  who  teach  otherwise." 

t  Salig  is  undeniably  correct  when  he  says :  * '  Tlie  papists  believed  that 
the  Lutherans  were  entirely  at  one  with  them  on  this  point  and  taught 
transubstantiation."  Uistorie  Augs.  Conf.,  III.,  p.  471.  And  von  Bezold, 
an  Erlangen  professor,  has  written:  "In  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
a  form  was  selected  that  is  so  ambiguous  that  the  Catholic. theologians  could 
only  regret  the  lack  of  an  express  recognition  of  transubstantiation. ' '  Ge- 
scMchte  der  deutscJien  Iteformation,  1890,  p.  620.  For  confirmation  from 
the  Catholic  side  that  the  Catholics  approved  Article  X.  of  the  ' '  Invatiata ' ' 
and  rejected  and  condemned  Article  X.  of  the  Variata.  see  Fabricius's 
Earmonia  Conf.  Augustanae,  second  edition  (1587),  pp.  188-9. 

t  C.  K.  III..  75  et  serjq.  Von  Eanke,  vol.  5,  p.  323. 


228       THK  MELANCMTHON    KDITIO.XS  OK  THK  AlKiSBl'KO  CONFESSION. 

the  word  means  administered.  It  is  also  used  in  the  same  sense 
in  the  Wiirtemberg  Confession  of  FaitJi/'  And  this  same  word 
is  used  by  the  Lutheran  dogmaticians  more  frequently  than  all 
other  words  taken  together  to  set  forth  the  doctrine  that  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  "the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  that  is,  the 
Lord  Jesus  himself, "t  "are  administered  to  those  who  eat  in 
the  Lord's  Supper." 

Also:  In  the  Variata  we  have  the  words  "bread  and  wine." 
j  This  makes  it  impossible  to  construe  the  article  in  favor  of 
I  Transubstantiation,  as  had  been  all  along  done  by  the  Roman 
Catholics.  Hence  the  Catholics  have  never  accepted  or  approved 
Article  X.  of  the  Variata,  and  it  was  exactly  this  article  which 
Eck  instanced  at  AVorms  in  1541,  when  he  alleged  that 
the  Confession  had  been  changed.  Also  the  use  of  the  words, 
bread  and  wine,  are  fully  in  accord  with  the  Lutheran  teaching 
that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the  bread  remains  bread,  and  the  wine 
remains  wine,  and  that  with  and  by  these  media  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  are  administered  to  those  who  eat  in  the  supper. 
The  word  vescentibus  is  distinctively  Lutheran  as  over  against 
the  Zwinglio-Calvinistic  view — credentihus.% 
"  And  as  further  evidence  that  Melanchthon  did  not  mean  to 
introduce  a  new  doctrine  into  the  Variata,  we  point  to  the  fact 
that  he  changed  not  a  single  word  in  Article  X.  in  any  of  the 
German  Variatae,  in  all  of  which  the  article  stands  as  it  was 
read  before  the  Emperor.  And  it  must  never  be  forgotten  that 
the  German  Confession,  since  it  was  chosen  by  the  Princes  to  be 
read,  and  was  read,  before  the  Emperor,  must  ever  take  preced- 
ence of  the  Latin  as  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Rather  nmst 
the  Latin  be  regarded  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  the  theo- 
logians, and  the  German  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  the 
Lutheran  Church. 
1  Hence,   all  things  considered,  it  is  not  only  gratuitous,  but 

*  Pfaff,  Acta  et  Sa-ipta,  pp.  340,  341.  The  word  distriljuere  does  not 
properly  suit  the  subject  in  hand,  and  does  not  convey  the  proper  Lutheran 
conception  of  the  Commtmion.  Hence  Ernesti,  in  his  Praeleetiones  in  Lihros 
Symbolicos  Ecclesiae  Lutheranae,  anno  1752  et  1777,  edited  by  J.  M.  Red- 
ling,  1877,  very  appropriately  says:  "Vocabulum  distribuere  h.  1.  non 
sensu  ordinario  nee  projn-io,  sed  crasiori  accipi.  Nam  proprie  est:  per 
partes  dividere,  quod  li.  1.  non  convenit.  Nani  in  s.  coena  quisque  totuiu 
corpus  accipit.     P.   71. 

t  Witteiiberg  Concord,  ut  supra,  p.  78. 

%  For  a  strong  and  positive  vindication  of  Melanchthon 's  Lutheran  sound- 
ness see  Melanchthon,  the  Theologian.  By  Dr.  H.  E.  Jacobs  in  The  Lutheran, 
the  oflfioial  organ  of  the  General  Council,  February  18,  1897.  pp.  4,  -5.  Among 
other  things,  Dr.  Jacobs  says:  "On  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
there  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  abandoned  the  explanation  of  Luther." 


THE  MELANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AUG.SBURG  CONFESSION. 


22*.> 


absolutely  imhistorical,  even  anti-historical,  to  sa\',  or  to  inti- 
mate, that  IMelanchthon  changed  Article  X.  in  the  Latin  Con- 
fession on  account  of  the  Sacramentarians,  or  on  account  of 
their  reputed  successors,  the  Calvinists,  in  the  later  edition.  And 
if  the  Cah^nists  chose  to  accept  this  article,  the  responsibility- 
is  with  themselves,  and  they  are  to  be  commended  for  their 
agreement  with  the  Lutherans  in  their  repudiation  of  all  am- 
biguity in  regard  to  transubstantiation.  The  facts  are  simply 
these:  The  Romanists  had  found  their  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  the  "Invariata."  The  Calvinists  found  their  doc- 
trine in  the  Variata.  But  in  those  days  the  cry  of  the  Gnesio- 
Luthcrans  was:    "Rather  the  Catholics  than  the  Calvinists." 

Consequently,  in  the  absence  of  any  contemporary  evidence 
and  testimony  to  the  contrary,  we  must  hold  as  Peucer  and  Sel- 
neccer  testify,  that  "the  meaning  of  the  subjects  is  the  same, 
although  here  and  there  in  the  later  edition  some  things  are 
rendered  more  explicit  on  account  of  the  adversaries,  or  have 
been  softened. ' '  *  And  in  corroboration  of  such  a  conclusion 
we  note  the  fact  that  this  Variata  went  out  accompanied  by 
the  Apology  exactly  in  the  form  in  which  it  had  appeared  in 
the  octavo  edition  of  1531,  in  which  Apology  we  read:  "In  the 
Lord's  Supper  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  and  sub- 
stantially present  and  are  truly  administered  (exhibeantur), 
etc. ' '  t  Surely,  IMelanchthon  could  not  be  guilty  of  such  a 
glaring  inconsistency  as  to  betray  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  in  the  Confession,  and  side  by  side  to  maintain 
it  in  the  Apology  in  one  of  its  most  rigid  and  extreme  forms  of 
statement. 

This  Variata  soon  so  far  supplanted  the  Latin  editions  of 
1531  that  they  became  for  a  long  time  almost  forgotten  books. 
Immediately  it  was  officially  employed  and  defended  at  the  Diet 
of  Worms  (1540-1),  and  again  at  the  Diets  of  Ratisbon,  1541 
and  1546.  At  the  Colloquy  of  Worms  in  1557  the  Variata  was 
not  only  presented  to  the  Catholics  as  the  Confession  of  the 
Lutherans,  but  it  was  made  the  basis  of  a  Lutheran  agreement 
that  was  signed  by  Lutheran  theologians  representing  churches 
extending  from  Pomerania  to  Wiirtemberg.  liUther  called  it 
"the  dear  Confession."    John  Brentz  praised  it  highly.     Chem- 


it^ 


^^ 


*  Selneccer,  ut  supra,  fol.  97,  who  -nrote  in  the  year  1571.  Peucer  wrote 
in  1562. 

t  The  Apology  that  accompanied  the  editio  princeps  and  that  which 
accompanied  the  octavo  edition  are  absolutely  identical  in  the  use  of  these 
words.    Even  the  abbreviations  and  the  punctuation  are  absolutely  identical. 


230       THK   MKLANCMTHOX   EDITIONS  OF  THE   AUGSBURG  CONKKSSION. 

nitz  declared  that  "it  was  in  everybody's  hands,"  and  both  he 
and  Selneceer  valiantly  defended  it,  and  declared  that  it  was 
used  with  the  knowledg'e  and  approbation  of  Lnther.* 

But  at  the  Colloquy  in  AVeimar,  Flacius,  hard  pressed  in  ar- 
gument, and  unable  to  refute  his  opponent,  who  had  quoted  from 
this  Variata,  said  that  Balthaser  Winter  had  told  him  that -George 
Rorer  had  told  him  that  Luther  was  not  pleased  with  Melanch- 
thon's  course  in  changing  tlie  Confession.  It  is  almost  super- 
fluous to  say  that  such  an  allegation  is  utterly  without  support. 
It  is  unhesitatingly  denounced  by  historians  as  "an  anti-Philip- 
pistic  fabrication,"  invented  by  Flaeius  to  cover  the  shame  of 
defeat  in  argument.  But,  the  fabrication  now  launched,  in  that 
day  of  suspicion  and  of  theological  jealousy  and  political  ani- 
mosity, the  Variata  became  disci^edited.  To  satisfy  the  Flaciauists, 
the  authors  of  the  Form  of  Concord  decided  to  exclude  every- 
thing that  had  been  brought  under  the  suspicion  of  being  Phil- 
ippisUc.  They  proposed  to  return  to  "that  first  and  unaltcrod 
Aiigsbnrg  Coufcssioi"  -^ — which,  however,  they  did  not  do,  and 
which  has  not  yet  been  done,  and  which  cannot  now  be  done,  for 
as  we  have  said  above,  so  we  say  here  again,  such  a  document  as 
"that  first  and  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession"  is  not  known  to 
exist  anywhere  in  the  world.  The  German  Text  us  Receptus  in 
the  Formula  of  Concord  is  a  faulty  copy  of  an  unsigned  manu- 
script, and  the  Latin  editio  princeps  is  "a  private  work  of  Mel- 
anchthon,"  and  is  already  a  varied  Augsburg  Confession. 

5.     The  Latin  Variata  of  1541-2. 
Melanchthon  was  still  not  satisfied  with  the  form   ^vhich  he 

*  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterhi  for  189S,  pp.  570-1.  Weber,  iil  suina, 
II.',  pp.  333,  341,  343.  Heppe,  Gesehiehie  d.  dentschen  Protest  ant  itoiius,  I., 
208.  Heppe,  Die  Confessionelle  Entn-ielhinf/,  p.  118.  Schaff,  Creeds  of 
Christendom,  I.,  p.  241.  KoUner's  SymboUl\  I.,  233-4.  Anton,  Geschiclite 
der  Coneordiaformel ,  pp.  79,  80.  Weber,'  after  an  exhaustive  inquiiy  into 
the  history  and  text  of  the  Variatae,  writes:  "  .\n(l  now  what  conclusion 
nuist  we  draw  from  all  these  historical  facts?  This  and  nothing  else:  In 
the  Variatae  Melanchthon  has  changed  nothing  in  doctrine.  Because  Luther 
and  the  other  co-reformers  raised  no  objection,  but,  as  the  evidence  shows, 
approved  and  sanctioned  them,  and  because  the  Evangelical  Church  by  pre- 
senting them  in  religious  colloquies,  and  by  authorizing  them  at  conventions, 
introduced  them  into  sdiools  and  took  them  into  corpora  doetrinae,  tliey 
re<-eived  symbolical  Mutliority. "  Vol.  11. ,  pp.  241-2.  Long  ago  Strohef 
challenged  the  learned  world  to  show  any  instance  in  which  an  evangelical 
theologian  took  excejition  to  Melanclithon 's  changes  in  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession prior  to  liltiO.  Apologie  Mehinchtho»s.  p.  94.  After  prolonged  re- 
searches we  repeat  Strobel's  challenge.  8ee  Weber,  ut  supra,  II.,  oOS-9. 
The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct.,  1898,  p.  568. 

■f  Lichtenberfi  Bedenlcn  ;  Hutter,  Concordia  Concors.  p.  7S/> ;  Forninla 
of  Concord:   The  Compendious  Form  of  Pdctrine. 


'iiii';  MKi.A.Ncn'riio.v  kdi'iioxs  ok  iiik  Ar(;snri;<;  ionkkssiox.      231 

had  given  the  Confession  of  l-llU.  In  the  year  1541  he  began, 
and  in  the  year  1542  he  finished  and  pnblished  another  edition 
in  octavo.  The  Apology  is  added.  The  title  is  word  for  word 
the  same  as  that  of  the  Yariata  of  1540,  except  that  the  phiee 
and  date  of  publication  appear  after  the  Apology  :  IMPRESSUJNI 
VITEBERGAE  ^srr  Georgium  Khan.  M.  D.  XLIL.  and  not 
at  the  bottom  of  the  title-page. 

In  matter  this  Variata  differs  from  that  of  1540  ver}^  slightly 
in  Articles  IV..  Y.,  XI.,  XX.,  but  considerably  in  Article  XXI. 
In  the  Articles  on  Abuses  there  is  considerable  difference  in 
Articles  IV.,  V.,  VII.* 

Of  the  Latin  Yariatac  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  (1531, 
1540,  1541-2),  described  above,  we  may  speak  in  general,  as 
we  have  spoken  of  the  German  Yariatac:  Each  declares  on  the 
title-page  that  it  is  the  Confession  of  Faith  that  was  delivered 
to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  at  Augsburg  in  the  year  1530,  and 
each  is  accompanied  by  the  Apology,  which  is  universally  recog- 
nized as  the  best  and  niost  authoritative  explanation  of  the  Con- 
fession. The  Lutheran  doctrine -has  not  been  corrupted  in  the 
Yariafae,  but  it  has  been  clarified,  amplified  in  statement,  forti- 
fied by  argument,  rendered  more  decidedl\-  Protestant,  and  more 
distinctively  Lutheran.  The  "Iiivariaia"  did  not  properly  repre- 
sent the  Lutheran  doctrine  in  opposition  to  the  Roman  Catholic 
dogmatic  tradition,  as  is  clearly  shown  hy  the  different  confuta- 
tions, by  the  agreements  reached  in  the  celebrated  Committee  of 
Fourteen, t  by  the  exclamation  of  Christopher  von  Stadion, 
Bishop  of  Augsburg:  Quae  recitata  sioit,  vera  sunt,  pura  sunt 
Veritas,  non  possumus  infic'iai-i.%  aiul  by  that  of  the  Emperor  him- 
self:    Protestantes  i)i  pdri  aiiicnlis  non  errar6.% 

Such  a  confession  could  not  have  formed  the  fundanientuni 
of  a  great  Protestant  Church,  but  rather  a  convenient  bridge 
for  crossing  to  the  right  bank  of  the  Tiber.  Thanks  to  iNIelanch- 
thon !  The  deficiencies  and  ambiguities  that  every  theologian 
encounters  in  the  editio  princeps,  to  say  nothing  about  the  "In- 
variata."  are  removed  by  the  later  Yariatac,  which,  for  almost 
fifty  years,  supplanted  the  editio  princeps.  and  helped  to  deter- 
mine the  meaning  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  to  distinguish 
the  Lutheran  doctrine.     Consistency  would  n^quire  that  in  aban- 

^-  See  Weber,  ut  supra,  II.,  1(»9-111.  ('.  H.  XXVI..  r.4.1-:U7.  Jacobs.  Hook 
of  Concord.  II.,  147  et  seqq. 

t  TJw  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  1907,  pp.  .3'74  et  seqq. 

%  Walch,  Ivtroclttctio,  p.  176. 

§  Coelpstin,  IV.,  p.  109.     See  also  Wiodemanu's  Br.  .Tnhovit  Eel:,  ji.  :J70. 


232       THE  MKLANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION. 

doning  these  by  a  backward  step,  we  should  go  clear  back  to 
''that  first  and  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  delivered  to  the 
Emperor  Charles  V,  at  Augsburg  in  the  year  1530, ' '  which  they 
thought  they  were  doing  who  authorized  and  introduced  the 
change.  But  had  they  not  deceived  themselves  by  allowing  them- 
selves to  be  deceived,  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  they  themselves 
could  have  thought  of  subscribing  the  Confession  in  the  form 
in  which  it  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor.  June  25,  1530,  and 
we  cannot  conceive  that  it  would  be  possible  to  find  a  Lutheran 
body  to-day  which  could  be  induced  to  subscribe  the  Augsburg 
Confession  in  that  form,  w^ere  it  made  possible  to  do  so. 

Hence  the  thanks  of  the  entire  Lutheran  Church  are  due  to 
Melanchthon  for  his  Variatae.  He  represents  progress  and  adap- 
tation in  the  Lutheran  Church :  and  in  the  fact  that  Luther  and 
his  co-reformers  approved  and  endorsed  his  changes  and  adapta- 
tions, and  made  them  their  own,  we  have  the  positive  proof  that 
the  authority  of  the  Confession,  in  their  estimation,  was  not  to 
be  sought  in  the  letter,  or  in  any  particular  form  of  words,  but 
in  the  content  and  in  the  conception  of  doctrine. 

The  man  w'ho  w^rote  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  men, 
his  contemporaries,  who  endorsed  and  approved  it,  did  not  think 
that  it  was  perfect.*  ]Much  rather  did  they  hold  that  it  was 
capable  of  being  improved,  and  they  acted  accordingly.  In  the 
editio  princeps  they  gave  us  an  improved  Augsburg  Confession, 
a  confession  that  can  stand,  and  that  for  nearly  four  hundred 
years  has  stood,  as  the  distinctive  fundamentum  of  a  great 
Church.  In  this  form  the  Augsburg  Confession  has  had  its 
widest  recognition,  but  in  this  form  it  is  not  the  Confessio  Augus- 
tana  Invariata,  and  no  intelligent  theologian,  not  blinded  by 
prejudice,  would  claim  for  it  any  such  distinction,  or  would 
exhibit  it  as  the  proper  and  intended  antithesis  to  the  Variata  of 
1540,  since  it  is  itself  a  variata,  and  since  it  was  not  in  the  pur- 
view when  the  authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  invented 
their  distinction:  ''That  first  and  unaltered  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, Avhich,"  they  say,  "was  most  carefully  collated  by  trust- 
worthy persons  with  the  genuine  Original  which  was  delivered 

*  After  speaking  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  the  purest  and  the  most 
genuinely  Christian  manifestation  of  the  Latin  Church,  Von  Kanke  writes: 
"It  need  scarcely  be  added  that  it  was  not  meant  to  be  set  forth  as  a 
norm  for  all  time.  It  was  only  a  statement  of  a  fact.  '  Our  churches  teach ; 
it  is  taught;  it  is  unanimously  taught;  we  are  falsely  accused.'  These  are 
the  expressions  used  by  Melanchthon.  He  wishes  only  to  express  the  con- 
viction which  had  been  already  developed."  Deutsche  Geschichte,  7th  Ed., 
vol.  3,  p.  175. 


THE  MELANCHTHON  EDITIONS  OF  THE  AUGSBURC  CONFESSION.       233 

10  the  Emperor,  and  which  remains  in  the  keeping  of  the  Holy 
Empire ;  and  since  the  Latin  and  German  copies  were  both  found 
everywhere  to  be  of  the  same  meaning,  we  will  confess  to  no 
other, ' '  *  and  then  took  into  their  ' '  Christian  Book  of  Con- 
cord," for  the  German,  a  text  "without  authentic  value"  and 
"through  and  through  inaccurate,"  and  for  the  Latin,  first,  Mel- 
anchthon's  octavo  edition,  and  then  the  eclitio  princeps,  "a 
private  work  of  J\Ielanchthon,  "fa  variata. 

*  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Concord,  Dresden,  1580. 

t  Yon  Ranke,  7th  Ed.,  vol.  3,  p.  175,  note.     Tschackert,  ut  supra,  p.  61. 


CHAPTER  XY. 

THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION    FROM    1530    TO    1555. 

It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the  Imperial  Proclamation 
which  summoned  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  anno  1530,  declared 
that  one  object  of  said  Diet  was  to  consult  and  to  decide  on 
certain  dissensions  and  disturbances  in  regard  to  the  Holy  Faith. 
There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Charles  was  insincere  in  his 
declaration  that  "both  parties"  should  be  heard  in  love,  and 
that  every  effort  should  be  made  to  effect  reconciliation  and  to 
promote  unity  in  doctrine  and  in  Christian  living.  To  what 
extent  either  party  was  animated  b.\'  love  in  the  discussions  that 
ensued  will  always  be  a  subject  of  dispute.  Neither  will  Prot- 
estants and  Catholics  ever  agree  in  locating  the  responsibility 
for  the  failure  of  the  Diet  in  attaining  its  main  purpose. 

1.  The  licccss  of  the  Diet. 
But  there  is  ever}'  reason  to  believe  that  the  Lutherans  took 
Charles  at  his  word,  and  that  they  did  all  that  their  consciences 
would  allow  them  to  do  in  order  to  come  to  a  jierfect  agreement 
with  their  religions  opponents.  Indeed,  it  is  now  conceded  by 
all  fair-minded  historians,  competent  to  judge,  that  the  Lutheran 
concessions  at  Augsburg  imperiled  the  evangelical  cause.  Still, 
peace  Avas  not  made,  though  only  t^vo  or  three  points,  and  those 
appertaining  to  ceremonies  rather  than  to  doctrine — comnninion 
under  both  forms,  the  marriage  of  y^riests,  the  Canon  of  the 
Mass— separated  the  two  parties.*  The  Papists  Avould  be  satis- 
fied with  nothing  short  of  absolute  submission  to  the  papal  see, 
and  of  the  restoration  by  the  Protestants  of  the  entire  papal 
system  of  doctrines  and  ceremonies.  The  Lutherans,  inspired 
by  Luther  at  the  moment  of  supreme  peril,  refused  compliance 
with  such  unjust  and  unreasonable  demands,  and  Avithdrew  from 
further  negotiations.  This  action  of  the  Lutherans  only  intensi- 
fied the  determination  of  the  papal  and  imperial  party  to  sup- 
press the  Lutheran  and  other  heresies,  and  to  restore  unity  to 
Western  Christendom.    What  friendly  negotiations  had  failed  to 

*  Gieseler.  Church  Uislnni.  TV.,  14.")-(i.  I'litt,  .ipolofiie  der  Augustana, 
p.  ."^l.     The  Lutheran  Quarterhj,  Julv,  1900. 

(234) 


TMio  Ai:(!snrK(;  co.nfkssion  from  1530  to  loo").  235 

accomplish  was  now  to  be  accomplished  bj'  political  methods,  by 
a  general  council  of  the  Church,  and,  if  need  be,  by  the  cruel 
expedient  of  war. 

Finally,  on  the  nineteenth  of  November,  1530,  the  Imperial 
Recess,  or  Decree,  of  the  Diet  was  issued.     This  famous  docu- 
ment begins  by  reciting  that  the  Diet  had  been  called  for  the 
purpose  of  procuring  and  promoting  harmony  ' '  in  the  one  Christ- 
ian religion,  so  that  all  might  live  together  in  fellowship  and 
unity   in   the    one    Christian    Church;"    and   that    six    Princes, 
namely,  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the  ^Margrave  of  Brandenburg, 
Ernest  and  Francis  Dukes  of  Brunswick-Liineburg,  Philip,  Land- 
grave of  Ilesse,  Wolfgang  Prince  of  Anhalt,  and  the  legates  of 
six  cities,  namely,  Niirnberg,  Reutlingen,  Kempten,  Heilbronn, 
Windsheim  and  AVeissenburg  in  Nordgau,  had  presented  their 
Confession  of  Faith :  that  said   Confession  of  Faith  had  been 
thoroughly  confuted  out  of  the  Gospel  and  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
yet  the  aforesaid  Princes  had  not  allied  themselves  with  the  other 
Princes  and  Estates,  and  "agreed  with  us  in  all  the  articles." 
"Therefore  consulting  for  the  welfare,  peace  and  harmony  of 
the  Holy  Empire  and  of  the  German  Nation,  out  of  special  im- 
perial goodness  and  clemency  we  have  made  known  to  the  afore- 
said Elector,  Princes  and  cities  the  following  decree,  and  have 
clemently  entreated  that  it  be  accepted  by  them :    Namely,  that 
between  this  day  and  the  fifteenth  of  next  April,  they  should 
consider  whether  or  not  they  will  unanimously  hold  and  profess 
identically   concerning  the   disputed    articles    {de   articidis   non 
conciliatis:  German:  Der  unvergleichenden  Artikel  halben)  with 
the   Catholic  Church,  the   Papal   Holiness,   and  with  the  other 
Electors,  Princes  and  Estates  of  the  Holy  Empire,  and  with  the 
other  heads  and  members  of  the  Christian  world  until  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Council,  and  inform  us  under  their  seals  of  their  in- 
tention before  the  date  above-named; — meanwhile  Ave  will  con- 
sider what  duty  requires  of  us,  and  will  in  turn  report  to  them 
our  purpose.     During  the  period  of  deliberation  some  very  just 
articles  and  conditions  are  to  be  observed,  viz.:    We  earnestly 
will  and  enjoin  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony  and  his  allies  in  this 
matter  of  religion,  in  the  interval,  shall  take  care  that  nothing 
new  be  printed  and  sold  on  the  subject  of  religion  in  their  domin- 
ions and  territories,  and  that  during  this  interval  the  Electors, 
Princes  and  Estates  of  the  Holy  Empire,  preserve  peace  and 
harmony,  and  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  these  five  Princes,  and 
the  six  cities,  and  their  subjects,  shall  not  invite  nor  force  o\ir 


236  THE    AUG8BURG    CONFESSION    FROM    1530    TO    1555. 

subjects  of  the  Holy  Empire,  or  of  other  Electors,  Princes  and 
Orders,  as  has  heretofore  been  done,  into  their  own  fellowship 
and  that  of  their  sect.  ^Moreover,  should  any  subjects  of  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  of  the  five  Princes  and  six  cities,  of  Avhatever 
rank  or  condition,  still  adhere  or  wish  to  adhere  to  the  ancient 
Catholic  Faith  and  Religion,  it  is  to  be  free  and  safe  for  all  such 
in  their  churches  and  chapels  to  observe  their  ^vorship  and  cere- 
monies: and  they  shall  not  be  forced  to  make  any  further  inno- 
vations. Likewise  monks  and  nuns  in  Masses,  in  saying  and 
hearing  confession,  in  administering  and  receiving  the  Lord's 
Supper,  are  not  to  be  interfered  with.  Also  the  said  Elector  of 
Saxony,  the  five  Princes  and  six  cities,  are  to  ally  themselves 
with  us  and  the  other  Electors,  Princes  and  Estates  against  the 
Sacramentarians  and  Anabaptists,  and  are  not  to  separate  them- 
selves from  us  and  the  other  Electors  and  Princes,  but  by  counsel, 
work  and  assistance  are  to  promote  whatever  is  to  be  done  against 
them,  as  all  our  Electors,  Princes  and  Estates,  as  far  as  in  them 
lies,  have  promised  us  that  they  Avill  do  in  this  matter. ' '  * 

Analyzing  that  portion  of  the  Imperial  Recess  quoted  above, 
we  discover  that  it  is  directed  against  the  signers  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession ;  that  it  offers  the  signers  of  that  Confession  five 
months  in  which  to  submit  themselves  to  papal  jurisdiction,  with 
the  clearly  implied  threat  that  if  at  the  end  of  that  time  they 
still  persist  in  their  opposition,  the  powers  of  the  Empire  will  be 
turned  against  them ;  that  nothing  new  on  the  subject  of  religion 
is  to  be  printed  or  circulated :  that  no  efforts  are  to  be  made  to 
increase  the  number  of  the  Protestants ;  that  the  adherents  of  the 
old  faith  are  to  enjoy  the  full  privilege  of  worshiping  according 
to  the  old  forms,  and  that  these  signers  of  the  Confession  are  to 
assist  in  the  suppression  of  the  Sacramentarians  and  Anabaptists. 

The  Recess  then  proceeds  to  promise  that  a  general  council 
shall  be  summoned  within  the  next  six  months,  or  at  the  longest 
within  one  .year  after  the  close  of  the  Diet,  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  the  spiritual  and  temporal  affairs  of  the  Christian 
world,  and  for  restoring  peace  and  unity. 

Next  follows  a  discussion  of  the  Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  which 
declares  that  that  document  has  been  thoroughly  refuted  out  of 
the  Scriptures,  and  commands  the  four  cities,  Strassburg, 
Constance,  Memmingen  and  Lindau,  which  had  presented  it,  to 
submit  to  the  Catholic  Church.     This  is  succeeded  by  a  lengthy 

*  Latin  in  Chytraeus  's  Historia  Augustanae  Confessionis,  pp.  389-408. 
German  in  Walch,  XVI.,  1924  et  seqq. 


THK  Ar(;sBrRO  confkssion  from  1530  to  looo.  237 

review  of  the  entire  ecclesiastical  situation.  We  give  the  excel- 
lent summary  made  by  Sleidan  :  ' '  The  Decree  was  read  in  the 
assembly  of  all  the  States,  the  Emperor  being  present ;  wherein, 
after  a  recapitulation  of  all  the  proceedings,  the  Emperor  en- 
acted and  decreed,  that  they  should  not  be  tolerated  for  the 
future,  who  taught  otherwise  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  had 
hitherto  been  observed ;  that  nothing  should  be  changed  in  public 
or  private  INlass ;  that  children  should  be  confirmed  with  Chrism, 
and  sick  people  anointed  with  consecrated  oil ;  that  pictures  and 
images  should  not  be  removed,  and  where  they  had  been  taken 
away  should  be  restored;  that  the  opinion  of  those  who  denied 
man's  free-will  should  not  be  received,  because  it  was  brutish, 
and  reproachful  to  God;  that  nothing  should  be  taught,  which 
might  in  any  manner  or  way  lessen  the  authority  and  dignity  of 
the  magistrate ;  that  that  doctrine  of  man 's  justification  by  faith 
alone  should  not  be  admitted ;  that  the  sacraments  of  the  Church 
should  be  the  same  in  number,  and  have  the  same  veneration,  as 
anciently ;  that  all  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,  the 
offices  for  the  dead,  and  the  like,  should  be  observed ;  that  vacant 
benefices  should  be  conferred  on  fit  persons;  that  priests  and 
churchmen,  who  were  married,  should  be  turned  out  of  their  liv- 
ings, which  immediately  after  this  Diet  should  be  given  to  others ; 
but  that  such  as  forsaking  their  wives,  should  return  to  their 
former  state,  and  desire  to  be  absolved,  might  be  restored  by 
their  Bishops,  wdth  consent  of  the  Pope  or  his  Legate ;  that  as  for 
the  rest  they  should  have  no  refuge  or  sanctuary,  but  be  banished, 
or  otherwise  condignly  punished:  that  the  priests  should  lead 
honest  lives,  wear  decent  apparel,  and  avoid  giving  scandal ;  that 
all  unreasonable  compacts  and  agreements  that  priests  have  been 
anywhere  forced  to  make,  and  that  all  unjust  sale  also  of  church- 
good,  or  the  application  of  the  same  to  profane  uses,  should  be 
void  and  null ;  that  no  man  should  be  admitted  to  preach,  but 
he  that  had  an  authentic  testimony  from  a  Bishop  of  the  sound- 
ness of  his  doctrine  and  conversation ;  that  all  should  observe  the 
rule  here  prescribed  in  preaching,  and  not  venture  upon  that  ex- 
pression in  sermons,  that  some  were  endeavoring  to  stifle  the 
light  of  the  Gospel;  that  they  should  also  forbear  flouting  and 
reviling:  that  they  sliould  exhort  the  people  to  hear  INIass.  be 
diligent  in  prayer,  to  invoke  the  Virgin  ]\Iary,  and  the  rest  of  the 
saints,  keep  holidays,  fast,  abstain  from  meats  prohibited,  and 
relieve  the  poor :  that  they  should  put  it  home  to  monks  and  other 
religious,  that  it  was  not  lawful  to  forsake  their  order  and  profes- 


■238  THK  AUdSBum;  con  fission  from  15''50  to  looo 

sion ;  in  short,  that  nothing  shonkl  be  changed  in  those  things 
that  concerned  the  faith  and  worship  of  God:  that  they  who 
acted  otherwise  should  forfeit  lives  and  goods;  that  what  had 
been  taken  from  the  clergy  should  be  restored;  that  in  those 
places  where  monasteries  and  other  religious  houses  had  been  de- 
molished, they  should  be  rebuilt,  and  the  usual  rites  and  cere- 
monies performed  in  them;  that  they  who  within  the  territories 
of  the  adversaries,  followed  the  ancient  faith  and  religion,  and 
submitted  to  this  decree,  should  be  taken  into  the  protection  of 
the  Empire,  and  have  liberty  to  depart  whithersoever  they  pleased 
without  any  prejudice;  that  application  should  be  made  to  the 
Pope  about  a  council,  and  that  within  six  months  he  would  call 
one  to  meet  in  a  convenient  place,  there  to  begin  with  the  first 
opportunity,  and  within  a  year  at  the  farthest.  That  all  these 
things  should  be  firm  and  stable,  notwithstanding  any  exceptions 
or  appeals  made  or  to  be  made  to  the  contrary;  that  to  the  end 
this  decree  might  be  observed  and  put  into  execution,  in  as  far 
as  it  concerns  faith  and  religion,  all  men  should  be  obliged  to 
employ  whatever  fortune  God  hath  been  ];)leased  to  bestow  upon 
them,  and  their  blood  and  lives  besides;  and  that  if  any  man 
should  attempt  anything  against  another  by  force,  that  the  Im- 
perial Chamber,  upon  complaint  thereof  made,  should  warn  the 
party  that  used  force,  or  offered  hostility,  to  desist,  and  sue  his 
adversary  at  law;  that  if  he  obej^ed  not,  he  should  be  prosecuted 
criminally,  and  t(^  an  outbiwiy,  which  being  published,  the  neigh- 
boring Princes  and  cities  should  be  charged  and  commanded 
fortliwith  to  give  aid  or  assistance  to  him  that  was  in  fear  of 
being  assaulted:  but  that  no  man  should  be  admitted  into  the 
judicature  of  the  chamber,  unless  he  approved  this  Decree  made 
about  religion,  and  that  they  who  refused  to  do  it  should  be 
turned  out.'"  * 

The  language  of  the  Recess  is  mild  and  respectful;  but  its 
tone  is  firm  and  decided.  It  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  the 
result  in  case  of  disobedience.  Forcible  measures  are  clearly 
intimated.  And  as  to  contents,  it  is  virtually  a  confession  of 
faith.  At  the  opening  of  the  Diet  the  Catholic  Princes  had 
declined  to  present  a  confession,  or  a  statement  of  their  faith, 
alleging  that  they  adhered  to  the  faith  of  the  Church.  This 
Recess,  which  in  its  spii'it  and  matter  is  the  Avork  of  the  Catholic 
Princes  and  theologians,  inspired  largely  by  the  papal  legates, 
rather  than  the  work  of  the  Emperor,  furnished  the  positive 

*  Be  Statu  Heligionif;,  etc.,  pp.  114,  1L5;  Bohun's  Translation,  pp.  139,  140. 


THE  AU(isBrK<;  CONFESSION   Fijo.M   1  o30  TO  1 5oo.  289 

proof  that  no  concessions  would  be  made  by  the  Catholic  party, 
and  that  in  doctrine,  worship  and  jurisdiction,  the  Papacy  was 
determined  to  permit  no  changes  and  no  reformation  in  Germany. 
It  also  exhibited  a  programme  for  future  action.  In  a  word,  it 
was  the  Catholic  rnnnifesto,  and  it  set  up  a  clear  line  of  demarca- 
tion between  the  two  parties. 

2.     The  Protestant  Alliance. 

The  signers  of  the  two  confessions  had  the  choice,  simply, 
between  submission  and  resistance.  What  Avere  thej'  to  do? 
Their  consciences  were  doubly  bound.  They  could  not  renounce 
God's  Word,  and  repudiate  the  good  confession  they  had  wit- 
nessed at  Augsburg.  And  hitherto  it  had  been  held  that  it  was 
not  lawful  to  form  a  league  against  the  Emperor  and  to  defend 
their  faith  with  arms.  But  necessity  knows  no  law.  Besides,  the 
jurists  at  Wittenberg  had  decided  that  the  Emperor  had  tran- 
scended his  jurisdiction.  "To  obey  the  Emperor  in' his  man- 
dates and  commands  against  the  Word  of  God  would  be  an  un- 
pardonable and  irreparable  offense.  Hence,  in  matters  of  faith 
and  of  evangelical  truth,  we  must  obey  (jod  rather  than  man. 
Moreover,  the  Emperor  has  no  jurisdiction  in  matters  of  faith. 
But  he  has  the  power  to  proclaim  and  assemble  a  council  if  the 
Pope  be  slow  and  negligent.  lie  has  not  the  power  and  authority 
to  ordain  anything.  What  a  council  has  decreed  and  ordained, 
that  he  may  administer  and  execute." 

The  jurists  also  had  decided  that  as  the  Protestants  had  ap- 
pealed to  a  council,  execution  of  a  process  Avas  unlaAvful.  This 
principle  holds  in  ciA'il  matters.  "Much  more  does  it  have  place 
in  matters  of  faith  that  inA'oh^e  the  sah'ation  of  souls,  and  also 
in  matters  of  marriage.  Hence  in  the  matter  of  our  Christian 
faith  the  Emperor  is  not  a  judge,  but  only  a  private  person,  to 
whom  belongs  cognition  and  the  maintenance  of  the  laAv.  That 
is,  he  had  no  right  to  judge  and  to  ordain  Avhat  men  shall  believe 
and  hold.  He  has  no  right  of  execution  AA-here  the  matter  has 
not  first  been  heard,  discussed,  and  determined  in  a  council.  A 
judge  Avho  has  jurisdiction  and  poAver  to  decide  a  cause  may  be 
resisted  Avhen  he  proceeds  contrary  to  laAV.  or  after  an  appeal 
has  been  taken.  Hoav  much  more  then  a  judge  Avho  has  no  juris- 
diction in  a  cause  ?  And  Avhen  he  has  jurisdiction,  that  is 
fjuspended  by  an  appeal.  A  judge  Avho  has  gone  beyond  the 
limits  of  his  jurisdiction  may  be  disobeyed  Avithout  punishment." 

This  Opinion  of  the  jurists  Avas  made  the  basis  of  an  official 


240  THE  Ar(;sp.uFJG  coxfession  from  1530  to  1555. 

Opinion  bj'  Luther,  Jonas,  Bugenliagen,  Amsdorf  and  iNIelanch- 
thou:  "We  conclude  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  Prince  to 
protect  Christians,  and  the  proper  external  worship  of  God, 
against  all  unlawful  violence  just  as  in  civil  matters  it  is  the 
duty  of  a  Prince  to  protect  a  pious  subject  against  unjust 
violence.  J\Iuch  more  is  this  duty  incumbent  upon  Princes,  since 
the  Scriptures  often  enjoin  upon  Princes  the  protection  of  law- 
ful preachers  and  teachers.  .  .  ,  Therefore  it  is  without  doubt 
the  duty  of  Princes  to  protect  and  guard  Christian  subjects, 
Christian  doctrine  and  the  laAvful  public  worship."  They  further 
declare  that  should  the  Emperor  apply  force  while  the  appeal  is 
pending,  it  is  the  duty  of  Princes  to  resist  such  manifest  illegality, 
for  all  intelligent  persons  know  that  the  Emperor  ought  to  sustain 
the  appeal. 

This  Opinion  is  a  strong  and  positive  declaration  of  the  right 
and  duty  of  the  Princes  to  resist  the  Recess  of  the  Diet  and  all 
that  it  implied.  The  judgment  is  based  upon  the  most  funda- 
mental principles  of  the  common  law,  upon  Scripture  and  upon 
the  dictates  of  reason,  and  is  supported  by  appeals  to  histor3\  A 
little  later  they  issue  another  Opinion  in  a  similar  spirit,  and  use 
very  vigorous  language  in  the  support  of  their  position :  "There 
is  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  father  to  protect  his  wife 
and  child  against  open  murder.  And  there  is  no  difference  be- 
tween a  secret  murderer  and  the  Emperor,  when  the  latter  pro- 
poses unlawful  violence  beyond  his  jurisdiction,  and  especially 
unlawful  violence  in  public  matters.  For  violence  in  public  mat- 
ters removes  all  obligations  between  subject  and  ruler 
jure  naturae.  Likewise  in  this  case,  if  the  ruler  wishes  to  drive 
the  subject  to  blasphemy  and  idolatry."  * 

The  case  was  now  clear  to  the  mind  of  the  Elector.  It  was 
legally  and  morally  right  for  him  to  protect  his  subjects  from 
unjust  violence  and  to  save  them  from  the  horrors  of  religious 
persecution.  Consequently,  when  on  November  28th  he  received 
a  letter  from  the  Emperor  commanding  him  to  appear  at  Cologne 
by  December  21st,  "about  difficult  and  weighty  affairs,  relating 
to  the  public, ' '  and  on  the  same  day  a  letter  from  the  Archbishop 
of  Mayence  informing  him  that  the  Emperor  desired  him  to 
come  to  Cologne  for  the  purpose  of  taking  part  in  electing  a 
King  of  the  Romans,  he  forthwith  despatched  letters  to  the 
Landgrave  of  Hesse  and  to  the  rest  of  the  Evangelical  Princes 
and  cities,  praying  them  to  assemble  at  Schmalkald,  December 
*Walch,  X.,  660  et  seqq.    Erl.  Ed.,  64:  269  et  seqq. 


THK  Ar(;sBrK(;  conkks^ion   kijom   1530  to  1555.  241 

22d.    Meanwhile  he  despatched  his  sou,  John  Frederick,  to  Co- 
logne to  protest  against  the  election  of  Ferdinand  as  King  of   ^ 
the  Romans.    He  charged  his  son  to  represent  that  the  citation 
by  the  Archbishop  of  Mayence  had  not  been  legally  made,  and 
that  the  creation  of  a  King  of  the  Romans  was  a  signal  violation     ' 
of  the  rights  of  the  Empire,  and  of  the  statute  of  Charles  V, 

December  22d,  the  Elector  in  person,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  J 
Ernest  Duke  of  Brunswick,  Wolfgang  Prince  of  Anhalt,  Oebhard  /  5>^* 
and  Albert,  Counts  of  ]\Iansfeld,  and  representatives  of  Strass- ' 
burg,   Niirnberg,   Constance,   Ulm,   ]\Iagdeburg,   Bremen,   Reut- 
lingen,    Heilbronn,    Memmingen,    Lindau,    Kempten,    Isny,    Bi- 
berach,  Windsheim  and  Weissenberg  in  the  Nordgau,  and  of 
George  Margrave  of  Brandenburg,  met  at  Schmalkald,  and  made 
the  first  draft  of  a  league  of  mutual  defense. 

It  was  resolved  that  in  case  any  attempt  should  be  made  to 
enforce  the  Recess,  Avhether  under  pretext  of  law  or  in  any  other 
way,  *'on  matters  of  our  holy  faith,  or  on  things  appertaining 
thereto, ' '  all  should  stand  by  and  assist  the  one  accused ;  that  an 
appeal  should  be  taken  against  the  Recess ;  that  inasnuich  as  they 
had  been  accused  of  "having  been  vacillating  in  their  Confes- 
sion and  conduct  at  Augsburg,"  they  would  prepare  a  report  of 
the  transactions  at  Augsburg  in  Latin  and  French,  and  send  the 
same  to  the  Kings  of  England  and  France  and  to  other  sovereigns 
as  a  justification  of  their  course:  that  a  committee  should  be  ap- 
pointed to  consider  the  propriety  of  establishing  a  uniform  order 
of  rites  and  ceremonies,  since  they  had  been  accused  of  abolishing 
all  ceremonies  in  worship,  and  of  neglecting  Church  discipline.* 

This  Draft  was  signed,  December  31st,  by  all  the  Princes  pres- 
ent, by  Magdeburg  and  Bremen.  The  representatives  of  the 
other  cities  promised  to  report  to  their  principals,  and  to  an- 
nounce their  decision  within  six  weeks. 

3.     Tlie  Schmalkald  League. 

Thus  was  formed  the  famous  Schmalkald  League,  which  was 

destined  to  perform  so  important  a  part  in  the  cause  of  the 

Reformation.     Its  object,  as  stated  in  the  Draft,  was  "by  the 

grace  and  help  of  God  to  defend  and  maintain  our  holy  faith 

and  whatever  appertains  thereto."     The  faith  meant  was  that 

confessed  at  Augsburg,  and  that  that  had  been  preached  in  their 

churches,  and  that  prevailed  in  their  dominions.    It  was  a  league 

formed  for  the  pi-otection  of  the  Evangelical  faith  against  all 

"  Original  in  Waleli,  XVI.,  2141  et  seqq. 

16 


242  THE    AU(iSRUKG    (^0NFE8S](1N     KKO.M     1530    TO    loOO. 

that  was  implied  in  the  Imperial  Recess  of  November  19th.  Von 
Ranke  is  not  extravagant  when  he  writes:  "These  nine  days 
may  be  reckoned  among  the  most  important  in  the  history  of  the 
world.  The  threatened  and  despised  minority,  under  the  in- 
fluence of  a  religious  idea  on  which  depended  the  future  develop- 
ment of  the  human  mind,  assumed  an  energetic  and  even  war- 
like attitude.  They  determined,  in  like  manner  as  they  had  con- 
fessed the  new  doctrine  and  refused  to  abandon  it,  so  they  would 
now  defend  the  whole  position  into  which  that  Confession  had 
led  them — by  legal  means,  in  the  first  place  -.  but  if  necessary  by 
arms:  as  to  the  former,  all  were  agreed:  as  to  the  latter,  the 
majority  (some  still  entertained  scruples  as  to  their  legal  right)  ; 
and  thus  at  the  very  origin  of  the  innovation,  a  compact  and  de- 
termined union  was  formed  for  its  maintenance,  which  its  an- 
tagonists were  likely  to  find  it  difficult  to  overcome. ' '  * 

Truly  is  it  said  that  it  was  a  religious  idea  that  influenced  these 
lay  confessoi*s  of  Christianity.  The  Draft  contains  not  one  word 
that  looks  toward  the  protection  of  themselves  in  their  civil 
rights.  Everything  has  reference  to  their  lioJy  faith:  and  at  the 
same  time  they  sought  peace,  and  not  war.  Their  own  words 
furnish  the  best  evidence  of  the  devoutness  of  spirit  with  which 
they  enter  this  alliance.  Hear  their  supplication:  For  all  this 
may  our  Lord  God  grant  his  Holy  Spirit,  wisdom,  grace,  strength, 
power,  and  eternal  steadfastness,  and  in  addition  grant  to  the 
Christian  Estates,  and  to  the  whole  Christian  world,  peace,  and 
that  everything  may  redound  to  his  praise  and  glory :  and  to  that 
end  the  Estates  shall  and  will  have  devout  and  hearty  prayer 
offered  to  God  the  Almighty  in  the  churches  of  all  their  principal- 
ities and  dominions. ' ' 

Just  what  place  was  accorded  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  at 
this  first  convention  at  Schmalkald  is  not  a  matter  of  record, 
since  it  is  not  named  in  the  plan.  But  that  membership  with 
the  League  was  in  some  sense  determined  by  the  subscriber's 
relation  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  sho\ni  by  the  fact  that 
"Strassburg  was  instructed  to  invite  Ziirich,  Berne  and  Basel 
to  join,  provided  they  acknowledged  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion." t 

But  Cardinal  Hergenrother  is  supported  by  official  authority 
when  he  says :  ' '  The  Saxon  had  Ziirich,  Berne  and  Basel  invited 
to  enter  the  league  on  the  condition  that  in  reference  to  the 

*  Deutsche    Geschichte,    3,    p.    228. 
t  Seckcndorf,  II..  Book  III.,  p.  3. 


THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION    FROM    1530    TO    1555.  24o 

Lord's  Supper  they  accept  the  Strassburg  Confession,"  *  that  is, 
the  Confessio  Tctmpolitana:  for  Jacob  Sturm,  in  his  report  of 
the  Schmalkald  Convention,  written  December  17th  to  31st, 
makes  this  distinct  declaration,  and  also  says  that  when  the 
Strassburg  legates  to  that  Convention  were  interviewed  by  the 
Saxon  counsellor  and  others  on  the  subject  of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
they  gave  answer  and  presented  the  8t)-asshurg  Confession.^ 
This  makes  it  documentarily  certain  that  there  was  now  some 
moderation  of  intensity  in  regard  to  the  tenth  Article.  Besides, 
in  accepting  the  Angustana  the  Strassburgers  did  not  give  up 
the  Tetrapolitana.t  The  union  was  a  general  one  on  the  basis 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  was  not  exclusive,  and  did  not 
extend  to  minute  points.  Even  the  Tetrapolitana  was  expressly 
recognized  as  in  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God.§  Only  gradu- 
ally did  the  Tetrapolitana  cease  to  have  authority  at  Strassburg, 
and  it  was  not  until  1598  that  Strassburg  became  a  Lutheran 
citv  in  the  real  sense  of  the  word  Lutheran. 


4.     The  Purpose  of  the  Schmalkald  League. 

But  as  already  intimated,  this  first  meeting  at  Schmalkald  was 
only  preliminary.  Its  general  purpose  is  evident,  though  the 
Draft  lacks  distinctness  of  statement.  On  the  twenty-seventh  of 
February,  1531,  the  same  Princes,  and,  in  the  main,  the  same 
cities,  declare  still  more  plainly,  that  it  is  their  duty  to  have 
the  Word  of  God  preached  to  their  subjects,  and  not  to 
allow  it  to  be  suppressed  or  to  be  violently  wrested  from  their 
subjects;  that  they  will  faithfully  and  sincerely  stand  by  each 
other,  and  will  neither  secretly  nor  openly  enter  into  hostile  rela- 
tions Avith  each  other:  that  they  will  firmly  stand  together  in 
defense  of  "the  Word  of  God,  the  evangelical  doctrine  and  our 
holy  faith":  that  this  league  is  not  formed  in  opposition  to  the 
Emperor  or  to  any  other  person,  ' '  but  alone  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  Christian  faith,  and  of  peace  in  the  Holy  Empire  of  the 
German  Nation  and  for  the  repulsion  of  unjust  violence  from 
ourselves,  our  subjects  and  allies,  and  alone  for  defense  and  pro- 

*  Hefele's  Conciliengese'hichte,  IX.,  777. 

t  Strassburger  PoUtiscJie  Correspondenz,  p.  569.  See  also  Winkelmann, 
Der  SchmaJlaldhche  Bu,t<l.  pp.  91,  101.  They  were  not  even  required 
expressly  to  renounce  the  Zwinglians.     Kawerau,  III.,  118. 

J  Ambrose  Wolf,  Historia  von  der  Augsburguchen  Confession,  p.  29:i ; 
Heppe.  III.,  p.  315;  BeaJencyclopddie,"  XV..  p.  356;  Plitt.  Apologie,  p.  256, 
notes. 

§  Hefele,  TX.,  777. 


244  THE    AUGSBURG    ('ONFE.S8ION    FROM    1530    TO    l-")r)5. 

tection."     It  was  also  decided  that  this  League  should  stand 
for  six  years.* 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  fundamental  and  primary  object 
of  the  Schmalkald  League  was  the  defense  of  the  Gospel.  And 
while  the  Augsburg  Confession  is  not  mentioned  in  this  second 
Recess  of  the  League,  it  is  true,  nevertheless,  that  the  Confession 
forms  the  point  of  contact  of  all  who  unite  in  the  League,  and 
•embraces  the  conception  of  "the  evangelical  doctrine,"  and  "of 
the  Christian  truth,"  for  the  defense  of  which  the  League  was 
"Called  into  existence.  In  other  words,  the  Confession  delivered 
at  Augsburg,  June  25,  1530,  has  now  become  the  bond  of  a  larger 
and  of  a  more  determined  evangelical  union  than  that  repre- 
sented by  the  original  subscribers.  On  that  Confession  as  a 
'declaration  of  evangelical  truth  all  those  Princes  and  cities  who 
were  dissatisfied  with  the  old  ecclesiastical  regime  were  resolved 
to  defend  themselves  and  their  subjects  against  all  hostile  at- 
tacks of  the  Empire  or  of  the  Church.  And  it  is  gratifying  to 
learn  that  in  this  position  and  determination  they  had  the  en- 
dorsement of  the  Wittenberg  theologians,  who,  in  reviewing  the 
transactions  of  Schmalkald,  say :  "In  doctrine  there  can  and 
should  be  no  departure  from  the  Confession ;  for  Christ  says : 
'Whosoever  confesses  me  before  men,'  etc.  These  subjects  of 
dispute  have  reference  to  the  chief  part  of  the  Christian  doctrine. 
Should  these  be  obscured  or  renounced,  then  no  one  can  know 
what  Christ  is;  Christ  will  be  defamed,  and  consciences  can  have 
no  true  comfort."  They  repel  the  charge  that  they  have  abol- 
ished all  ceremonies,  or  have  pronounced  all  ceremonies  im- 
pious. But  they  steadfastly  declare,  in  accordance  Avith  the 
unvarying  Lutheran  conception  of  the  Gospel,  that  ceremonies 
are  not  to  be  regarded  as  necessary  to  salvation,  and  are  a  matter 
of  Christian  liberty.  ' '  To  an  extent  and  for  the  sake  of  children 
and  simple  people  they  must  be  observed.  But  the  Canon  of  the 
INIass,  and  the  Applicatio  operis  operati  pro  vivis  et  clefunctis. 
and  the  Private  Masses,  and  the  sacrament  under  one  kind,  are 
not  approved."  t 

5.     The  Confessional  Basis. 

And  that  both  the  Leaguers  and  the  Wittenberg  theologians 
became  stronger  in  their  determination  to  stand  upon  their 
evangelical  platform  is  shown  by  two  important  facts : 

1.     When  the  League  was  renewed,  in  the  year  1536,  only 

*  Original  in  Waleh,  XVI.,  21(59  et  seqq.    Winckelnianii,  p.  92, 
t  Walch,  XVI.,  2174  et  seqq. 


THK    Ar(iSl?UK(i    (OXFKSSION     FHOM     1530    TO    lOOO.  245 

those  Avere  to  be  admitted  "who  hold  by  the  Word  of  God  and    / 
the  Gospel,  and  the  pure  doctrine  of  our  Confession  that  was 
delivered  to  the  Emperor  and  to  all  the  estates,  and  Avho  have 
the  same  taught  and  preached  in  their  lands. "  * 

2.  When  Henry  the  Eighth  of  England  was  aspiring  to  be 
placed  at  the  head  of  the  Schmalkald  League,  the  Leaguers  ex- 
pressty  require  "that  the  Most  Serene  King  shall  promote  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  and  the  pure  doctrine  of  faith  in  the  manner 
in  which  the  Princes  and  Confederate  Estates  confessed  it  in  the 
Diet  at  Augsburg,  and  have  guarded  it  in  the  published  Apology, 
unless  perhaps  with  the  common  consent  of  the  Most  Serene 
King  and  the  Princes  themselves,  some  things  should  seem  to- 
need  change  in  accordance  with  the  Word  of  God. 

"Also  that  the  jMost  Serene  King  shall  guard  and  defend  the 
said  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  and  ceremonies  as  conformed  to  the 
Gospel  in  a  future  General  Council,  provided  it  (the  Council) 
be  pious,  catholic,  free  and  truly  Christian."  f 

And  at  the  Saalfeld  (October  24,  1531)  and  Schweinfurt 
(April  2-5,  1532)  conventions,  which  grew  out  of  the  Schmalkald 
League,  and  in  The  Niirnherg  Religious  Peace  (July  23,  1532),.  "^ 
the  Lutherans  made  no  deviation  from  the  basis  agreed  upon  at 
Schmalkald,  except  that  they  added  the  Apology  "as  a  defense 
and  explanation  of  the  Confession."  $ 

6.     lite  Beligious  Colloquies. 

1.  In  the  Colloquy  held  at  Wittenberg  in  the  year  1536,  be-  ^ 
tween  the  Wittenberg  theologians  and  the  theologians  of  Upper 
Germany,  it  was  solemnly  declared.  May  29th:  "But  since  they 
all  (the  subscribers)  profess  that  in  all  the  articles  they  wish  tO' 
hold  and  to  teach  according  to  the  Confession  and  Apology  of 
the  Princes  who  profess  the  Gospel,  we  especially  desire  that 
concord  be  ordained  and  established. ' '  § 

2.  At  Schmalkald,  February,  1537,  thirty-three  doctors  and  / 
preachers  declare:     "We  have  re-read  the  articles  of  the  Con- 
fession presented  to  the  Emperor  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  1 1  and 
by  the  blessing  of  God  all  the  preachers  who  have  been  present  in 
this   Schmalkald   Convention   do  unanimously  declare   that  in 

*  Hortleder,  I.,  1.503. 

t  C.  E.  II.,  1032. 

t  Winckelmann.  Der  Schmalkaldische  Bund.  pp.  192  et  seqq.,  and  805; 
Sleidan,  p.  128&;  Eng.  Translation,  pp.  159,  160. 

§  C.  E.  II..  75.  76. 

ij  The  German  Yariata  of  1533  was  employed  at  Schmalkald.  Weber,  II.,. 
71  €t  seqq.     C.  E.  XXVI.,  699. 


246  THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION    FROM    1580    TO    1535. 

their  churches  they  hold  aud  teach  accordiag  to  the  articles  of 
the  Confession  and  Apology.  They  also  declare  that  they  ap- 
prove the  article  on  the  primacy  of  the  Pope  and  his  power,  and 
on  the  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  which  here  at 
Sehmalkald  has  been  presented  to  the  Princes  in  this  conven- 
tion."* 

3.  At  a  convention  held  in  Sehmalkald  in  March,  1540,  at- 
tended by  the  representatives  of  Princes  and  cities,  and  by 
tl^eologians,  proposals  were  received  for  the  admission  of  Henry 
VIII.  of  England  to  the  Sehmalkald  League,  and  a  large  sum  of 
money  was  suggested  for  the  support  of  the  League  in  case  of 
agreement  in  doctrine.  After  a  few  days  the  Lutheran  theolo- 
gians gave  a  written  response  to  the  ambassadors :  ' '  The  sum  of 
it  all  was  this :  That  they  ought  not  to  depart  from  the  contents 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  nor  of  the  Apology  which  was  after- 
wards annexed  to  it.  This  Opinion  all  the  divines  who  were  ab- 
sent afterwards  approved  by  their  letters  to  the  convention."  r 

4.  June  25,  1540,  a  colloquy  between  the  Catholics  and  the 
Lutherans  was  opened  at  Hagenau.  The  former  demanded  of 
the  latter  that  they  present  in  brief  form  the  heads  of  the  con- 
troverted doctrines.  The  latter  replied  as  follows:  "That  the 
Confession  -of  their  faith  and  Apology  had  been  presented  at 
Augsburg  ten  years  before,  to  which  they  still  adhered,  being 
ready  to  satisfy  any  that  found  fault  wdth  it;  and  since  they 
knew  not  what  it  was  that  their  adversaries  chiefly  censured  in 
that  book,  they  had  nothing  to  propound,  but  rather  w^ere  to 
demand  of  them  what  the  doctrines  were  that  they  taught  con- 
trary to  the  Word  of  God."  t 

5.  The  Colloquy  of  Worms,  which  was  but  the  adjourned 
Colloquy  of  Hagenau,  Avas  opened  November  25th.  §  It  had  been 
decreed  at  Hagenau  that  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion should  be  made  the  subjects  of  discussion.  The  Lutherans 
insisted  upon  the  execution  of  this  Decree,  and  accordingly  laid 
down  their  Confession,  the  Yariata  of  1540,  and  declared  them- 
selves prepared  to  defend  it.     When   Eck   complained  of  the/ 

*  Miiller,  Die  Symb.  Biicher,  10th  Ed.,  p.  345.  The  Tractate  on  the  Power 
and  Primacy  of  the  Pope  was  written  at  Sehmalkald  by  Melanchthon. 

tSleidan,  p.  197?>;  Eng.  Tr.,  p.  2.55.  Seekendorf ."  Lib.  III.,  258.  See 
C.  R.  III..  961,  973.  Lindsay,  A  History  of  the  Reformation,  II.,  p.  341. 
See  Die  Wittenberger  Artikel  von  1536,  edited  by  Mentz,  Leipzig,  1905, 
which  Seekendorf  called  a  "  Bepetitio  et  exegesis  qiiaedam  Augustanae 
Confessionis."     Lib.  TIL,  p.  111. 

tSleidan,  p.  20(i;  Eng.  Tr.,  p.  267.     See  Seekendorf,  Lib.  III..  265. 

§  November  25,  1540;  .January  14-18,  1.541. 


THE    AUGSBl'Kc;    COXFKSSION    FROM    1530    TO    1  ■)•")").  247 

changes  that  had  been  made  in  the  Confession,  ]\Ielanchthou  at 
once  replied  :  ' '  The  meaning-  of  the  subjects  is  the  same,  though 
in  the  later  edition  some  things  have  been  more  mildly  expressed 
or  have  been  better  explained."  *  The  Variata  was  then  used  as 
the  basis  of  the  discussion  that  followed.  Of  the  thirty-two 
evangelical  legates  present  at  Worms,  not  one  raised  objection 
to  the  use  of  the  Variata.  Hence  it  was  at  this  Worms  Colloquy  y 
that  the  Variata  of  1540  first  received  official  and  formal  recog- 
nition as  the  Augsburg  Confession. 

6.  On  January  18th,  the  Worms  Colloquy  was  adjourned  to 
meet  at  Regensburg  (Ratisbon)  in  the  following  Spring.  In 
official  documents  presented  to  the  Emperor  the  Lutherans  de- 
clared their  adherence  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  clear 
and  unqualified  language,  as:  "This  entire  kind  of  doctrine, 
which  is  set  forth  in  our  churches,  and  which  exists  in  our  Con- 
fession and  Apology,  is  the  doctrine  which  is  handed  down  in 
the  Gospel  and  in  the  consensus  of  the  Catholic  Church  of 
Christ."  "Again  we  testify  that  we  embrace  the  Confession 
which  was  delivered  to  his  Imperial  IMajesty  at  Augsburg  and 
the  Apology  which  was  added. ' '  ' 'We,  the  legates  of  the  Elector, 
the  Princes,  and  estates,  and  the  counsellors  and  legates  of  those 
absent,  w^ho  follow  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  religion 
therein  contained."  t 

The  Augsburg  Confession  presented  at  Regensburg  was  the 
Variata,t  which  is  recognized  as  the  Confession  that  was  pre-  ^ 
sented  to  the  Emperor  at  Augsburg,  and  that,  too,  with  the 
knowledge  and  consent  of  Luther,  and  it  was  while  this  Diet 
was  in  session  that  Luther  wrote  to  the  Elector  that  the  Lutheran 
legates  at  the  Diet  "are  standing  by  the  dear  Confession."  § 

These  six  instances  (and  others  could  be  adduced)  show  that 
the  Lutherans  stood  by  their  Augsburg  Confession  with  all 
fidelity.  They  were  firmly  convinced  that  that  Confession  con- 
tained the  doctrine  delivered  in  the  Gospel.     But  they  did  not 

*  C.  R.  IV.,  34.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  charged  his  commissioners  to 
the  Worms  Colloquy :  ' '  That  they  were  to  stand  by  the  Confession  and 
Apology  in  word  and  in  sense,  as  they  had  been  recently  approved  again  at 
Sehmalkald  by  all  the  Estates  and  their  allies  in  religion."  Weber,  II., 
p.  .318.  Eealencyelopodie,-  V.,  537.  The  German  copy  presented  at  Worms 
was  substantially  a  reprint  of  the  German  Variata  of  1533.  See  Weber^ 
II.,  318,  320,  321,  and  The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  Oct.,  1897,  pp.  562  et  seqq. 

tSee  C.  R.  IV.,  pp.  413-431,  especially  p.  431  and  p.  434;  pp.  478.  483. 
Bueer,  Acta  Colloqun  in  Com.  Imp.  Batis'bonae,  k.  iiii.  and  1.  iiii.  Cochlaeus 
says  of  the  Lutherans  at  this  Diet:  "Ad  suam  Confe?sionem  Anonstanam 
ejiisque  Apologiani  alligabant  fidem  suam."     Commeutoria.  ]>.  302. 

:•:  Schmidt,  Philipp  Melanehfhon,  pp.  373-4,  note. 

§  Dp  Wette,  V.,  357. 


248  THE    AU(;SBURG    CONFESSION    FROM    1530    TO    1555. 

tie  themselves  to  the  letter  of  the  Confession.  They  had  not 
brought  with  them  from  Augsburg  a  certified  or  engrossed  copy 
of  their  Confession.  They  had  delivered  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion to  the  Emperor,  and  it  was  not  now  accessible  to  them.  In 
strictness  of  speech,  tliey  did  not  have  an  Augsburg  Confession. 
They  had  only  uncertified  copies  of  the  said  Confession.  But 
Melanchthon's  editio  princeps  was  at  once  accepted  as  the  Augs- 
burg Confession.  This  was  soon  supplanted  in  use  by  the  Latin 
octavo  edition  of  1531,  and  by  the  German  Variata  of  1533 ;  and 
these  again  by  the  Variatae  of  1540.*  All  these  editions  alike 
bore  the  superscription :  ''Delivered  to  his  Imperial  Majesty  at 
Augsburg  in  the  year  1530. ' '  Theologians  and  Princes  accepted 
them  and  defended  them,  as  from  time  to  time  they  were  pub- 
lished, as  the  Augsburg  Confession.  They  laid  no  stress  on  the 
letter,  but  on  the  substance  and  content  of  doctrine.  In  the  later 
editions  they  found  a  better  explanation  of  the  evangelical  doc- 
trine than  had  been  put  in  the  earlier  forms. 

7.  In  the  Spring  of  1551  Melanchthon,  under  instruction 
from  the  Elector  IMaurice,  wrote  the  Bepetition  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  for  presentation  at  the  Council  of  Trent,  in  case  it 
should  be  deemed  expedient  to  send  commissioners  to  the  coun- 
cil. In  the  first  paragraph  of  the  Preface  it  is  declared:  "We 
mean  simply  and  faithfully  to  reiterate  the  sum  of  the  doctrine 
which  is  preached  in  all  the  churches  that  embrace  the  Confession 
of  the  Reverend  Dr.  Luther,  and  we  repeat  the  doctrine  of  the 
Confession  Avhich  was  presented  to  the  Emperor  Charles  at  the 
Diet  of  Augsburg  in  the  year  1530,  although  some  things  are 
here  more  fully  recited."!  This  Repetition,  known  also  as 
Confessio  Saxonica,  was  endorsed  and  approved  by  synods,  uni- 
versities, superintendents  and  theologians  from  Pomerania  to 
Strassburg,  and  was  incorporated  in  several  Corpora  Doctrinae.% 

8.  In  ]\fay.  1554,  a  convention  of  Lutherans  was  held  at 
Naumburg  for  the  purpose  of  formulating  Articles  of  Faith  to 
be  presented  to  the  next  Imperial  Diet,  and  to  oppose  a  common 
declaration  to  the  errors  of  Osiander  and  Schwenckfeld.  Here, 
on  the  24th.  a  declaration,  written  by  Melanchthon,  was  pre- 
sented and  signed.  In  the  first  paragraph  it  is  said:  "We 
appeal  to  the  published  and  well-known  Confession  which  was 
delivered  to  his  Imperial  ^lajesty  at  Augsburg  in  the  year  1530, 

*  Schmiflt,  Fhilipp  Melanchthon,  pp.  .373-4.  note, 
t  C.  R.  XXVITL.  .327  et  seqq. 
i  C.  R.  XXVTTI.,  4.57-468. 


TH 


E    AU<;SBURG    COXFESirlON    FROM    1530    TO    1555.  249 


and  by  which  our  churches  through  the  grace  of  God  still  stand, 
because  they  know  that  this  is  the  sole,  eternal  consensus  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  of  the  true  Catholic  Church  of  Christ." 
The  subscribers  declare  that  they  will  not  depart  from  this  Con- 
fession, and  that  either  it,  or  the  Confession  of  Brentz.  or  the 
Saxon,  may  be  delivered  to  the  Emperor.* 

9.  The  next  year,  in  ]\Iarch,  sixteen  Ijutheran  Princes  as- 
sembled at  Naumburg  and  resolved:  "That  as  to  religion  they 
would  not  exceed  the  terms  and  limits  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion;  but  because  those  heads  of  the  Christian  religion,  which 
were  contained  in  it,  had  not  in  the  least  any  seditious  or  im- 
pious doctrines,  by  the  blessing  of  God  they  would  persevere  in 
it."  They  also  insisted  on  the  execution  of  the  Article  in  the 
Passau  Treaty,  which  provides  "that  those  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  shall  also  be  admitted  into  the  Imperial  Chamber."  t 

7.   The  Augsburg  lieligious  Peace. 

We  come  now  to  the  year  1555.  In  the  twenty-five  years  that 
stretch  back  to  the  first  Diet  of  Augsburg  the  Lutheran  Church 
had  passed  through  trying  vicissitudes.  It  had  suffered  the  loss 
of  Luther,  had  experienced  the  desolations  of  the  Schmalkaldic 
War,  had  been  distracted  by  the  two  interims,  had  been  racked 
by  internal  feuds,  had  been  wounded  and  weakened  by  the  polit- 
ical animosities  of  the  Weimar  Dukes  and  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 
Yet,  with  all,  and  notwithstanding  all,  in  this  first  quarter  cen- 
tury of  its  existence  it  had  so  lengthened  its  cords  and  strength- 
ened its  stakes  that  by  the  year  1555  Protestantism  embraced 
nine-tenths  of  the  peoples  of  Germany  and  twenty-nine-thirtieths 
of  the  population  of  the  Archduchy  of  Austria.  Or,  more  par- 
ticularly: In  Germany  the  Lutherans  composed  seven-tenths  of 
the  population :  the  sects,  two-tenths ;  the  Roman  Catholics,  one- 
tenth.t 

But  here  at  Augsburg,  in  1555,  the  Lutheran  Church  failed 
to  secure  the  full  fruition  of  her  victory.  The  Lutheran,  or  so- 
called  Lutheran,  Princes  of  Germany  had  become  religiously 
degenerate.  They  were  not  animated  by  the  spirit  that  had  ani- 
mated their  fathers  at  Augsburg  in  1530,  and  they  did  not  have 

*C.  E.  VIII..  284;   Salig,  L.  682-3. 

tSleidan.  p.  4.31b;  Eng.  Translation,  p.  572;  Ibid.,  p.  614.  Von  Eanke, 
5:263.     Moller-Kawerau,  2cl  Ed.,  TIL,  p.  147.     Lindsay,  II.,  396. 

t  Von  Ranke,  The  Popes,  Eng.  Tr.,  I.,  p.  19-5.  Kahnis  Der  Iniiere  Gang 
des  Deutschen  Protestantismus,  p.  61.  Bealencydopadie,^  II.,  p.  253; 
Ihid.'.  XIV.,  p.  322.    Neves  Archiv  fiir  Saclisisehe  Gcschichte,  X..  p.  221. 


250  THE  AU(;sBUR(;  confessjiox  from  1580  to  1555. 

chancellors  like  Briick,  Heller,  Feige.  The  I\Iacchiavelliau 
political  spirit  ruled  iu  the  hearts  of  the  Princes  assembled  at 
this  second  Diet  of  Augsburg.  Joachim  of  Brandenburg,  still 
quite  as  much  Catholic  as  Lutheran,  had  instructed  his  commis- 
sioners to  declare  the  Imperial  Interim  as  the  proper  basis  for 
the  meeting  of  Catholics  and  Lutherans,  while  at  that  very  time 
he  had  his  own  eye  directed  toward  his  son,  Sigismund,  whom 
the  Pope  had  already  confirmed  as  Archbishop  of  IMagdeburg, 
and  was  trying  also  to  obtain  the  Pope's  confirmation  for  the 
bishopric  of  Halberstadt.  Many  of  the  Protestant  Princes, 
among  them  Duke  Christopher  of  Wiirtemberg,  still  believed  in 
the  possibility  of  coming  to  an  understanding  with  the  Catholics 
on  the  subject  of  religion.  "Evangelical  Princes  commended 
themselves  or  their  friends  to  the  Pope  as  good  Catholics  in  order 
to  acquire,  under  the  maintenance  of  all  the  regulations,  this  or 
that  benefice  (Stift),  while  they  (the  Catholics)  at  the  same  time 
promised  to  the  Evangelicals  in  these  benefices  {Stiftern)  the 
exercise  of  the  true  religion.  Even  the  Elector  August  of  Saxony 
during  the  Diet  played  such  a  comedy  with  reference  to  the 
bishopric  of  IMeissen.  In  strongest  antithesis  to  this  unworthy 
procedure  stood  the  resolutions  which  had  been  composed  at  the 
meeting  of  the  most  distinguished  Protestant  Estates  at  Naum- 
burg.  [See  above,  9.]  This  assembl}^  attended  by  the  Elector 
August  and  the  sons  of  the  recently  (March  3,  1554)  deceased 
John  Frederick,  the  Brandenburgers  and  the  Hessians,  alto- 
gether sixteen  Princes  and  thirty  magnates,  presented  a  kind  of 
counter-Diet,  except  that  it  exhibited  more  splendor  than  the 
Imperial  Diet.  Here,  indeed,  the  final  attitude  of  the  Evangel- 
icals was  consistent.  It  was  resolved  (Alarch  12th)  to  stand  by 
the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530  and  to  decline  the  settlement  of 
religious  questions  by  a  vote  of  the  majority.  The  Elector 
Joachim  hastened  to  abandon  his  unfortunate  proposition  in  re- 
gard to  the  Interim.  Thus,  on  the  side  of  the  Protestants,  a  firm 
foundation  was  gained  for  the  negotiations  at  Augsburg.  IMean- 
while  the  Electoral  College  at  Augsburg  had  decided,  first  of  all, 
to  take  up  the  burning  question,  and  that,  too,  at  any  cost,  in 
the  sense  of  an  abiding  peace ;  whereupon  the  College  of  Princes 
violently  resisted  and  the  Cardinal  of  Augsburg  protested  in 
every  way.  But  the  decided  declaration  of  the  Naumburg  Princes 
made  a  greater  impression  than  did  this  protest,  while  at  the 
Diet  Christopher  of  Wiirtemberg,  in  opposition  to  the  Catholic 
majority  of  the   Collesre  of  Princes,  'as  the  ringleader  of  the 


THE    AUGSBURG    COXFKS.SION    FROM    1530    TO    1555.  251 

party/  advocated  the  demands  of  the  Evangelicals.  Finally  it 
came  about  that  all  the  spiritual  Princes  even,  with  the  exception 
of  the  Cardinal,  agreed  on  a  permanent  religious  peace  without 
a  preceding  consensus,  and,  in  view  of  the  threatening  attitude 
of  the  Evangelicals,  they  withdrew  some  provisos  which  they 
had  made.  It  was  agreed  that  the  peace  should  be  'firm,  con- 
istant,  unconditional  and  everlasting.'  Even  the  conditions  of 
such  a  peace,  absolutely  indispensable  for  the  Protestants :  Guar- 
antee of  the  right  of  possession  and  of  church  government,  were 
carried  through  without  any  special  difficulty.  The  episcopal 
jurisdiction  with  reference  to  the  Protestant  territories  was 
suspended,  the  confiscation  of  the  spiritual  goods,  in  so  far  as 
they  did  not  belong  immediately  to  the  Empire  and  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  Protestants  at  the  time  of  the  Passau  Treaty,  was 
sanctioned."* 

That  is,  here  at  Augsburg,  September  25,  1555,  the  Lutherans, 
notwithstanding  the  double-dealing  of  some  of  the  most  powerful 
Protestant,  or  so-called  Protestant,  Princes,  wrung  from  the 
Catholics  the  Decree  of  absolute  religious  independence  in  the 
sense  and  to  the  extent  that  neither  the  Emperor,  nor  the  King 
of  the  Romans,  nor  any  Prince  or  Estate  of  the  Empire,  for  any 
cause  or  pretext  whatever,  shall  attack  or  injure  the  adherents  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession  on  account  of  their  religious  faith ;  nor 
shall  they  by  command,  nor  in  any  other  way,  force  any  adherent 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  forsake  his  religion,  or  to  abandon 
the  ceremonies  already  instituted  or  hereafter  to  be  instituted ; 
and  the  Emperor  and  the  King  and  the  Estates  shall  suffer  them 
without  hindrance  to  profess  the  religion  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, and  peacefully  to  enjoy  their  goods,  possessions,  rents 
and  rights. t 

The  Catholics  insisted  on  naming  in  the  Recess  the  Augsburg 
Confession  of  1530,  or,  the  form  in  which  it  had  been  delivered 
to  the  Emperor,  and  in  confining  the  benefits  of  the  peace  to 
those  who  adhered  to  the  Confession  in  that  form.  They  charged 
that  the  Protestants  were  not  agreed  among  themselves,  inas- 
much as  the  later  editions  of  the  Confession  contradicted  the 
earlier.  But  the  Electoral  Counsellors  would  not  limit  them- 
selves to  any  one  redaction  of  the  Confession,  since  the  later 
editions  did  not  differ  from  that  of  1530.  and  at  Passau  all 

*  Von  Bezokl,  Grficlnehte  der  Beufsclien  I^eformatiov,  pp.  867-8. 

t  Text  in  Ralig,  T..  690  et  seqq.  See  Sleidan.  Lib.  XXVT.  Gieseler,  IV., 
207.  Lindsay,  I.,  .397.  K.  Th.  Hergang.  Das  Auoshvrcier  Interim,  pp. 
272-276. 


252  TH?:  AUciSBUKCJ  (confession  khof  1530  to  1555. 

"others  who  do  not  belong  to  the  known  sects  condemned  by  the 
Imperial  Recess"  w^ere  to  be  admitted  into  the  peace.  That  is, 
the  scope  of  the  peace  as  determined  by  the  Protestants  them- 
selves excluded  only  Zwinglians,  Anabaptists,  etc.*  And  as  re- 
gards the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  "Invariata"  and  the  "Var- 
iata"  were  placed  on  the  same  level. y  And  as  the  text  of  this 
Imperial  Recess  has  not  been  officially  changed,  it  is  exactly  oii 
this  basis  that  the  Protestants  of  Germany  vindicate  their  relig- 
ious rights  to  this  day.  The  Peace  of  Westphalia  (1648)  harks 
back  to  the  Religions  Peace  of  Augsburg  and  makes  no  mention 
of  the  different  editions  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.:!:  "And  it 
is  evident,  at  least  in  regard  to  the  commissioners  of  Electoral 
Saxony,  that  they  meant  actually  to  include  the  Upper  German 
adherents  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  among 
those  who  were  to  be  protected  by  the  law.  "§  And  the  reason 
given  by  the  Saxon  commissioners  for  this  broader  conception  is 
that  they  were  not  constructing  articles  of  faith,  but  concluding 
a  common  peace,  and  that,  they  did  not  wish  to  arouse  further 
distrust.  I  j 

Nevertheless,  this  decree  of  absolute  religious  independence  in 
favor  of  all  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  w^as  coupled 
with  the  pernicious  principle  of  the  cujus  regio  ejus  religio, 
that  is,  the  religion  of  the  civil  ruler  determines  the  religion  of 
his  subjects:  so  that,  should  inclination  or  interest  lead  a  civil 
ruler  to  remain  a  Catholic,  or  to  become  a  Catholic,  the  people 
living  in  his  dominions  should  be  Catholics,  though  a  subject 
professing  a  different  religion  from  his  Prince  might  depart  the 
country  Avithout  molestation. 

This  enactment  opened  a  wider  door  to  the  Jesuits,  and  quick- 
ened their  energies  in  entering  the  houses  of  Princes  and  in  in- 
sinuating themselves  as  the  tutors  and  instructors  of  the  future 
rulers  of  the  different  territories.  From  this  time  on  the  counter- 
Reformation  made  rapid  progress,  and  the  Jesuits  and  the  Ger- 
man Catholic  Princes  became  the  strongest  and  the  most  aggres- 
sive supporters  of  Rome.^    Inquisitions  were  begun,  as  in  Ba- 

*  The  language  of  the  excluding  article  is  as  f oHot^s :  ' ' Doch  sollen  alle 
andere/  so  obgeuieklten  bevden  Religionen  nit  anhangig/  in  disem  Frie- 
den  nit  gemeynt/  sonder  ganzlich  aussgeschlossen  scyn. ' ' 

tVon  Eanke,  5,  262;  6,  p.  305  et  seqq. :  Karl  Miiller,  Kirchengeschichie^ 
JI.,  448;  Nencs  Archiv  fiir  Sliclmsche  GescMehie,  X.  Band,  225;  G.  Wolf, 
Ber  Augfthvrfier  Beligionsfriede,  p.  61;  EealcneycJopildie,^  II.,  252. 

t  Friedberg,  Eirchenreeht,  Anhang,  III.,  320. 

§  Ludwig  Schwabe  in  Neues  ArcMv,  ut  supra,  p.  226. 

II  Von  Eanke,  6.  308. 

if  Gieseler.  Chtirrh  History,  TV.,  223  et  sfqq. 


THE    AUGSBrnC    CONFKSSIOX    FROM    15->0    TO    1555.  253 

varia,  and  colleges  were  established  for  traiuiug  the  most  sub- 
servient agents  for  all  kinds  of  service  in  opposition  to  the 
Reformation,  so  that  in  the  course  of  time,  instead  of  having  one- 
tenth  of  the  people  of  Germany,  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  now 
has  more  than  one-third  of  the  people  of  Germany  and  nearly  all 
the  people  of  Austria. 

But  besides  the  cujus  regio  ejus  rcligio,  the  Diet  embodied  in 
the  Recess  the  famous  Ecclesiastical  Reservation,  which  provided 
that  a  Bishop,  Prelate  or  other  Catholic  clergyman  leaving  the 
Catholic  Church,  should  forfeit  all  the  revenues  attached  to  his 
station ;  and  the  Chapter,  or  those  who  by  law  or  custom  had  the 
right  of  choosing  a  successor,  could  proceed  to  fill  the  vacancy 
by  electing  one  of  the  old  faith,  and  could  reserve  to  him  the 
peaceable  enjoyment  of  all  the  goods  that  belonged  to  his  posi- 
tion. To  this  the  Protestants  objected,  and  they  demanded  as  a 
counter-concession  toleration  for  all  Lutherans  living  in  terri- 
tories ruled  over  by  Catholic  Princes.  This  demand  was  not 
embodied  in  the  Recess,  but  Ferdinand  promised  that  it  should 
be  carried  out  in  practice,  which  was  not  done. 

These  were  the  two  questions  which  were  not  settled  at  Augs- 
burg in  1555.  As  they  involved  fundamental  principles,  they, 
joined  with  the  cujus  regio  ejus  religio,  became  active  among 
the  causes  that  brought  on  The  Thirtij  Years'  War,  so  that  we 
may  say  with  von  Bezold,  that  the  Augshurg  Religious  Peace 
"was  in  reality  an  Interim  which  was  to  bring  upon  the  nation 
far  worse  injuries  and  miseries  than  had  been  brought  by  the 
Reformation  effected  by  the  Emperor  in  1548."  *  Not  onl}'  did  it 
cut  off  from  the  Lutheran  Church  the  possibility  of  gaining  addi- 
tional territory ;  not  only  did  it  open  wider  scope  to  the  Catholic 
activities;  "but  by  it,  at  least  as  regards  Lutheranism,  the  Refor- 
mation, which  had  been  scarcely  begun,  was  broken  off,  and  was 
never  again  taken  up.  They  (the  Lutherans)  thought  that,  be- 
cause they  could  no  longer  expand  themselves  externally,  they 
were  also  perfect  internally,  and  were  content  to  hold  fast  to 
the  little  that  had  been  acquired.  The  result  was  doctrinal 
controversies  and  a  Church  of  officials."!  The  fact  is,  the 
personnel  of  leadership  among  the  Protestants  had  greatly 
changed.  John  the  Steadfast,  John  Frederick,  Margrave  George, 
had  passed  away.  George  of  Anhalt  was  still  living,  but  he  had 
never  been  influential.    Philip  of  Hesse,  by  reason  of  his  youth- 

*  GescMchte  der  Deutschen  Be  format  ion,  p.  866.    See  Pastor,  p.  476. 
t  Kolde  in  HeaJencyclopodie,^  vol.  II.,  p.  2-53. 


y 


254  THE    AUGSBURG    CONFESSION    FROM    15o0    TO    1555. 

fill  excesses  and  in  consequence  of  his  long  imprisonment,  had 
grown  prematiirely  old,  and  as  a  result  of  his  bigamy  he  had 
lost  his  influence.  The  Lutheran  Princes  reigning  at  that  time 
were,  the  best  of  them,  only  epigoni.  For  the  most  part  they  were 
such  as  had  been  influenced  by  Maurice,  the  traitor;  such  as 
were  now  more  or  less  under  the  influence  of  August  and  of 
"fat  old  Interim."  as  the  wits  of  the  time  nicknamed  Joachim 
of  Brandenburg,  whose  >Macchiavellian  politics  have  been  already 
described.  Also,  as  compared  with  their  predecessors,  they  were 
indolent,  selfish,  jealous  of  each  other.  They  had  received  their 
religion  as  an  inheritance.  It  had  not  come  to  them  as  a  con- 
viction, and  as  the  result  of  a  great  internal  and  external  con- 
flict. It  was  something  that  might  be  profitably  employed  for 
themselves  and  for  their  people  to  promote  personal  aggrandise- 
ment and  public  tranquillity.  As  a  consequence  of  this  lack  of 
religious  conviction  and  of  religious  discrimination,  their  views 
were  too  narrow  and  their  sympathies  Avere  too  contracted  to 
provide  for  the  world-wide  interests  of  Protestantism.  They 
were  content  to  rest  in  present  attainments,  or  rather,  in  the 
achievements  of  their  predecessors.  As  the  result  of  narrow- 
ness, selfishness.  ]\Iacchiavellianism  on  the  part  of  Protestant 
Princes  at  Augsburg  in  1555,  the  historian  must  record  the 
limitation  of  Protestantism  throughout  Europe,  and  the  horrors 
of  The  Thirty  Years'  War  in  Germany.  Principles  may  slumber, 
but  they  never  die.  Nevertheless,  The  Augsburg  Religious  Peace, 
even  such  as  it  was,  was  a  great  boon  to  Protestantism,  and 
through  Protestantism  a  great  boon  to  the  entire  Christian  world. 
For  more  than  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  it  has  stood  as 
the  Magna  Charta  for  freedom  of  conscience  in  religion,  and  it 
has  stimulated  "the  adherents  of  the  old  religion"  in  the  direc- 
tion of  higher  spiritual  ideals.  But  neither  Charles  V.  nor  the 
Pope  approved  the  Peace.  The  former,  who  was  on  the  point  of 
abdication,  saw  in  it  the  defeat  of  his  many  efi:'orts  to  re-unite 
the  Church,  and  the  Pope  could  not  concede  to  an  Imperial  Diet 
the  right  to  reform  the  Church.* 

*  In  additiou  to  the  literature  uuted  in  the  margins  of  the  immediately- 
preceding  pages,  see  ComposiHo  Pads.  ' '  By  some  distinguished  lawyers  of 
the  Catholic  Religion,"  Frankfort,  1629,  p.  44.5;  Appendix,  p.  46.  Con- 
tains the  Passau  Treaty  and  the  Augsburg  Recess  in  the  Appendix.  Also: 
Der  Aucisbw-ger  BeUgionsfnedc.  Osnabriiek,  1855,  p.  59.  Der  Augsburger 
Eeligionsfriede.  Leipzig,  1855,  p.  140.  Both  of  these  contain  the  text  of 
the  Augsburg  (1555)   Recess. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAX    CONFESSIONS. 

By  the  words  that  stand  at  the  head  of  this  chapter,  we  mean 
Luther's  two  Catechisms,  the  Apology  of  the  Confession  and  the 
•Sehraalkald  Articles,  all  of  which  were  taken  into  the  Book  of 
<''oneord,  published  in  the  year  1580. 

].     Luther's  Two  Catechisms. 

From  the  latter  part  of  July,  1516,  to  and  including  the 
Lenten  Season  in  1517,  Luther  preached  on  the  Ten  Command- 
ments and  on  the  Lord's  Prayer.  March  13,  1519,  he  wrote 
Spalatin:  "I  am  engaged  every  evening  expounding  the  Com- 
mandments and  the  Lord's  Prayer  to  the  children  and  to  the 
uneducated. ' '  * 

In  the  Lenten  Season  of  1522,  he  preached  on  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments. In  the  year  1523  he  preached  on  "the  Ten  Com- 
mandments, the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  the  Ave  ]Maria."  f 
In  the  years  1523,  '24,  '25,  '26,  '27,  '28,  he  preached  on  the 
Sacrament  and  on  Confession.  In  the  years  1526.  '27,  '28,  he 
preached  on  different  points  connected  with  Baptism.  In  1527 
he  preached  a  series  of  sermons  on  the  Ten  Commandments.? 

]Much  of  the  material  in  these  sermons  is  catechetical,  and 
the  end  kept  in  view,  in  many  instances,  was  to  prepare  the 
simple  people  for  the  worthy  reception  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Some  of  his  publications  in  these  years  bear  the  following 
titles:  "An  Explanation  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  for  the  Plain 
Laity"  (1518):  "A  Short  Explanation  as  to  how  one  should 
Confess"  (1519)  :  "A  Short  Form  of  the  Ten  Commandments, 
of  the  Creed  and  of  the  Lord's  Prayer"  (1520).  Of  this  last, 
Dr.  Inmischer,  the  editor  of  Luther's  Homiletical  and  Catecheti- 
cal Writings  for  the  Erlangen  Edition,  says:  "These  three 
parts :  Of  the  Ten  Commandments.  Of  the  Creed,  and  Of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  held  an  important  place  during  the  Middle  Ages 
up  to  the  times  of  the  Reformation,  as  the  foundation  of  popu- 

*  De  Wette,  I.,  239. 

t  Buchwald,  Die  Entstehung  der  Catechismen  Luthers.    Y. 

I  Erl.  Ed..  36:  1-144.     Buchwald.  p.  viii.  a.  note  1. 

(255) 


256  THK    OTHKK    OLD    UTHKKAX    COXFKSSION'S. 

lar  instruction  in  the  Church,  and  Luther  esteemed  them  so 
highly  that  lie  declared  that  in  these  three  parts  is  contained, 
fundamentally  and  abundantly,  all  that  exists  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  that  is  preached  and  that  is  necessary  for  the  Chris- 
tian to  know.  Hence,  he  not  only  explained  them  in  the  present 
writing,  but  made  them  the  basis  of  his  Small  Catechism  of 
1529."* 

In  the  introduction  to  this  SJiort  Form,  Luther  complains  of 
the  existence  of  many  books  of  high-sounding  title — Ilortidus 
Aniniae,  Paradisum  Animae — by  which  Christians  are  deceived. 
He  also  condemns  the  Passionary  and  the  Legend  Book  as  con- 
taining contributions  from  the  devil.  He  shows  how  the  Com- 
mandments are  kept  and  how  they  are  transgressed.  He  ex- 
pounds the  Creed  under  three  general  heads  and  makes  a  most 
frequent  use  of  "I  believe."  Then,  after  a  brief  introduction, 
he  explains  the  seven  petitions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer,  with  a 
fair  degree  of  fulness.  It  has  been  well  said  that  this  little 
book  is  the  most  important  forerunner  of  the  Catechisms. 
_.<  In  TJie  German  Mass  and  Order  of  Divine  Service  (1526),t 
X  Luther  wrote:  "Well,  in  God's  name  !  The  first  thing,  a  good, 
simple,  plain,  easy  catechism  is  necessary  in  German  worship. 
But  catechism  means  the  instruction  with  which  the  heathen, 
who  wished  to  become  Christians,  were  taught  and  directed 
what  they  should  believe,  do,  abstain  from,  and  know  in  Chris- 
tianity; hence  the  learners,  who  were  received  for  such  instruc- 
tion and  learned  the  faith  before  they  were  baptized,  were  called 
catechumens.  The  instruction  or  teaching  I  do  not  know  how  to 
arrange  more  simply  or  better  than  it  has  been  arranged  from 
the  beginning  of  Christianity,  and  continued  up  to  the  present 
time ;  namely,  the  three  parts :  The  Ten  Commandments,  the 
Creed,  and  the  Lord's  Prayer.  In  these  three  parts  is  found 
simply  and- briefly  almost  all  that  a  Christian  needs  to  Imow. " 
He  then  proceeds  to  say  that  Christian  instruction  must  be 
preached  from  the  pulpit,  and  that  the  children  and  servants 
must  be  questioned  from  article  to  article,  and  he  actually  shows 
how  it  is  to  be  done,  by  propoimding  and  answering  questions 
on  the  Lord's  Prayer  and  on  the  Creed. 

But  it  was  the  Visitation  of  the  Saxon  churches  in  1527-9,  that 
gave  the  real  occasion  for  the  composition  of  the  Catechisms 
in  the  form  in  which  we  now  know  them,  for  in  the  Preface  to 
the  Small  Catechism.  Luther  writes  as  follows:     "The  deplor- 

"  Erl.  Ed.,  22:  1.  t  Erl.  Ed.,  22:   22G  et  seqq. 


THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CX)NFESS[©NS.  257 

able  destitution  which  I  observed,  during-  a  visitatiou  of  the 
churches,  has  impelled  and  constrained  me  to  prepare  this 
Catechism  or  Christian  Doctrine  in  such  a  small  and  simple 
form.  Alas,  what  manifold  misery  I  beheld !  The  common 
people,  especially  in  the  villages,  know  nothing  at  all  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine ;  and  many  pastors  are  quite  unfit  and  incompetent 
to  teach.  Yet  all  are  Christians,  have  been  baptized,  and  enjoy 
the  use  of  the  sacraments,  although  they  know  neither  the  Lord 's 
Prayer,  nor  the  Creed,  nor  the  Ten  Commandments,  and  live 
like  the  poor  brutes  and  swine.  Still  they  have,  now  that  the 
Gospel  has  come,  learned  to  abuse  all  liberty  in  a  masterly 
manner." 

It  was  also,  doubtless,  the  discovery  of  this  deplorable  destitu- 
tion that  led  Luther  to  preach,  in  the  year  1528,  three  courses 
of  catechetical  sermons  at  Wittenberg,  one  in  May,  one  in  Sep- 
tember and  one  in  December.  But  by  this  time  he  was  ready  to 
begin  the  work  of  writing  the  Catechisms,  or  rather  of  changing 
these  sermons  into  catechisms.* 

January  15,  1529,  we  find  him  at  work  on,  the  Catechism,  for 
on  that  day  he  writes  to  Pastor  Martin  Gorlitz  of  Brunswick : 
"I  am  now  engaged  in  preparing  a  Catechism  for  the  rude 
pagans. ' '  t  And  on  January  20th,  George  Rorer  writes  to 
Stephen  Roth:  "I  think  at  the  time  of  the  next  Frankfort 
Fair  the  Catechism  preached  by  D.  M.  will  be  published  for 
the  rude  and  simple. ' '  t  This  was  the  Large  Catechism,  which 
was  finished  and  published  on  .or  before  April  23d,  for  on  that 
day  Rorer  sent  three  copies  of  the  printed  Catechism  to 
Zwickau.  § 

The  Large  Catechism  was  now  complete  in  its  first  form.  It 
bore  the  simple  title:  German  Catechism,  Mart.  Luther.  A 
second  edition  appeared  the  same  year  with  the  addition  of 
A  Brief  Admonition  to  Confession.  A  third  edition  appeared 
in  the  year  1530,  to  which  Luther  prefixed  the  large  preface  em- 
phasizing the  value  of  catechetical  instruction,  and  giving  second 
place  to  the  shorter  preface  which  had  appeared  with  the 
earlier  edition.] |  According  to  the  shorter  preface  Luther  "pre- 
pared this  little  book  with  no  other  view  than  to  adapt  it  to  the 
instruction  of  the  young  and  illiterate,"  but  in  the  longer  pref- 

^  Bealencyclopddie,^  X.,  p.  132. 

fEncler's  Luther's  Brief wechsel,   7:    43   and  note   G. 

i  Wittenberg  Stadt-it.  Univ.-Geschichte,  p.  51. 

§  Ut  supra,  p.  59.    Biichwald.  wf  supra,  p.  xvi.  b. 

||  Kolde,  Einleitung,  pp    lix.,  Ix. 


258  THE   OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

ace  he  urges  "pastors  and  preachers  to  exercise  themselves 
and  others  assidnonsly  every  day  in  the  Catechism,  as  a  synop- 
sis and  comprehensive  epitome  of  the  whole  Sacred  Scripture, 
faithfully  and  continually  proclaiming  it  to  the  Church." 

But  while  Luther  was  engaged  in  the  preparation  of  the 
Large  Catechism,  he  prepared  and  published  an  epitome  of  it, 
that  is,  the  Small  Catechism,  though  not  in  book  form,  but  in 
the  form  of  two  series  of  tables,  or  tablets,  which,  as  intended 
chiefly  for  use  in  the  family  and  in  schools,  could  be  hung 
against  the  wall.  This  is  evident  from  a  passage  in  the  letter 
written,  January  20th,  by  George  Rorer  to  Stephen  Roth: 
"While  I  am  writing  this  I  look  at  the  wall  of  my  aestuary.* 
I  see  hanging  on  the  wall  tablets  (tabulas)  containing  in  very 
brief  and  compact  form  Luther's  Catechism  for  children  and 
for  the  family. "  f 

The  first  series,  that  to  which  Rorer  refers,  appeared  not 
later  than  January  20th,  and  contained  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, the  Creed,  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  other  prayers.  The 
second  series  appeared  before  the  middle  of  March,  or  about  the 
time  that  the  people  were  accustomed  to  go  to  Confession  and 
to  Communion.  This  we  learn  from  a  letter  wa-itten  by  Rorer, 
March  16th,  to  Roth,  in  which  he  says  that  it  has  been  recently 
printed,  and  he  calls  it  "tablets  (tabulae)  of  Confession  and 
tables  on  the  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  of  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ."  t  By  ]May  16th,  the  Small  Catechism  had  appeared 
in  book  form,  and  very  soon  thereafter  a  second  edition  was 
printed.  Neither  of  these  editions  is  now  extant.  But  we  have 
reprints  of  the  first  Wittenberg  edition,  two  of  them  done  in 
Erfurt,  and  one  in  Marburg.  §  These  reprints,  made  independ- 
ently of  each  othei',  show  us  to  a  high  degree  of  certainty  what 
the  original  AVittenberg  edition  was.  Turning  now  to  one  of 
the  Erfurt  reprints,  and  to  the  Marburg  reprint,  we  find  that 
they  contain  the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Creed,  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  the  Sacrament  of  Holy  Baptism  and  the  Sacrament  of 
the  Altar,  that  is,  the  five  principal  parts.  These  are  followed 
by   the    Morning    and    Evening   Prayers,    The    Benedicite    and 

*  Aestuarnnn :  Defined  in  Du  Cange  by  Bypocaustum,  Gall.  Foele,  Eiuve, 
Stove. 

t  Buchwald,  Aich.  fur  Gesch.  d.  iltsch.  Buchh.,  XVI.,  p.  84. 

t  Eealencyclopadie ,  X.,  p.  133.  Tabulae  is  defined  as  writing  tablets, 
and  as  tablets  writteii  upon. 

§  By  Theodosins  Harnaek,  in  his  Der  Kleine  KatecMsmiis,  Stuttgart, 
3  8.56.  The  other  Erfurt  reprint  has  been  reproduced  in  facsimile  by  Har- 
tuDg  in  Leipzig.     This  we  have  not  seen. 


THE   OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 


259 


Oratias,  The  Table  of  Duties  (Haustafel),  The  Marriage  Cere- 
mony for  Plain  Pastors  {Ein  Trawhuchlin).  Harnack  repro- 
duces one  of  the  Erfurt  editions  as  a  reprint  of  the  editio 
princeps,  with  textual  variants  of  the  ^Marburg  reprint  in  the 
margin. 

By  June  13,  1529,  a  third  edition  of  the  Small  Catechism  had 
appeared  at  Wittenberg,  which,  in  addition  to  the  five  chief 
parts,  contains  the  following  as  an  appendix  (Anhang)  :  Morn- 
ing and  Evening  Prayers,  The  Benedicite  and  Gratias,  The 
Tahle  of  Duties  (Haustafel),  A  Marriage  Ceremony  for  Plain 
Pastors  (Ein  Trawhuchlin,)  The  Order  for  Infant  Baptism 
(Das  Tauffbuchlin  verdeudsc*het,  und  auffs  neu  zugericht,  durch 
Mart.  Luther)  of  1526,  The  German  Litany,  with  notes  and 
three  closing  collects.* 

Now  placing  side  by  side  the  title-pages  of  the  Erfurt  and 
^larburg  reprints,  and  that  of  the  third  Wittenberg  edition,  we 
have  the  following  interesting  exhibit : 


Der  kleine 

Catechiemus  fur 

die  gemeine   Pfar- 

herr  vnd  Pre- 

diger. 

Mart.   Luther. 
Witt^mberg. 


At  the  end  : 
Gedruckt    zu    Erf- 
furd  durch  Conrad 
Treffer. 


Der  Kleine 

Catechiemus ,    Fiir 

die  gemeyne  Pfar- 

herr  vnd  Pre- 

diger. 

Mart.   Luther 

Marburg. 

1529. 

At  the  end  : 
Gedruckt   zu  Mar- 
burg vm  Jahr 
m,D.    vnd    XXTX. 


ENCHIRIDION. 

Der  kleine 

Catechiemus  fur 

die  gemeine  Pfarher 

vnd  Prediger, 

Gemehret  vnd 

gebeesert,    durch 

Mart.     Luther. 

Wittemberg. 


At  the  end  : 

Gedruckt     zu   Wit- 
temberg,     durch 
Nickel  Schirlentz. 

m  D  XXIX. 


y 


These  title-pages  all  show  that  the  Small  Catechism  Avas 
intended  for  the  use  of  pastors  and  preachers,  whether  for  their 
own  personal  instruction  and  spiritual  benefit,  or  for  use  in 
their  congregations,  or  for  both  uses,  is  not  indicated;  but  more 
probably,  as  indicated  b}^  the  Preface,  it  was  intended,  in  this 
book  form,  both  to  be  studied  by  the  pastors  and  to  be  taught 
to  the  people  in  order  to  prepare  them  for  a  worthy  approach 
to  the  sacrament  and  for  discharging  the  duties  of  Christians. 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  21,  p.  3;  22;  pp.  290  et  seqq.  Harnack,  pp.  xxii.,  xxiii., 
72,  82,  83.  Kolde,  Einleifiing,  pp.  Ix.,  Ixi.  Bnchwald,  Entstehung,  p. 
xiv.     Fealencyclopihhe.^  X.,  p.  134. 


260  THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

It  is  particularly  to  be  noted  that  the  third  Wittenberg  edition 
was  "enlarged  and  improved." 

The  Large  Catechism  was  translated  into  Latin  by  Joiin 
Lonicer,  a  Marburg  Professor.  The  dedication  to  L.  P.  Rosellus  of 
Padua,  is  dated  May  15,  1529.  The  title  is :  Lutheri  Catechismu-s 
Ijatina  donatus  eivitate,  per  Joannem  Lonicerum.  ]\Iarpurgi  1529. 
At  the  end:  Ex  Typographia  JNIarpurgensi,  Anno  Millesimo, 
Quingentesimo  XXIX.  IIII.  Nonas  Septembres.  Meanwhile 
Vincentius  Obsopous,  a  learned  school  rector  of  Anspach,  had 
executed  a  translation  and  had  dedicated  it  to  Margrave  Albert 
of  Brandenburg,  July  1,  1529,  and  added  to  it  a  translation  of 
the  two  Catechisms  of  John  Brent?.  The  whole  was  published 
under  the  following  title:  D.  Martini  Lutheri  Theologi,  Cate- 
<;hismus  lectu  dignissimus,  latinus  factus  per  Vincentium  Obso- 
paeum.  Huic  adiecti  sunt  alij  quoque  gemiui  Catechismi,  Joan- 
nis  Brentij  Ecclesiastae  Hallensis  eodem  interprete.  Hagenoae, 
An.  MDXXIX.* 

The  Sitiall  Catechism  was  also  twice  translated  into  Latin  in 
the  year  1529 ;  the  first  time  under  the  title :  Simplicissima  et 
brevissima  Catechismi  expositio,  as  an  appendix  to  a  transla- 
tion, by  an  unknown  hand,  of  Luther's  little  book  entitled: 
Enchiridion  piarum  precationum,  printed  at  Wittenberg  in 
1529.  The  second  translation  appeared  with  a  dedication  to 
Hermann  Crotus  Rubeanus,  dated  September  29,  1529,  and  was 
executed  by  John  Sauermann.  The  title  runs  thus:  Parvus 
Catechismus  pro  pueris  in  schola :  Parve  puer,  parvum  tu  ne 
contemne  libellum,  continet  hie  summi  dogmata  summa  Dei. 
Mart.  Luther.  i\L  D.  XXIX.  At  the  end:  Wittenbergae  apud 
Oeorgium  Rhau.    Anno  M.  D.  XXIX. 

Beginning  with  the  year  1531,  "original  editions"  of  the 
Small  Catechism  appeared  in  the  following  years  during  the 
lifetime  of  Luther:  In  1531,  1535  and  1536  (known  only  biblio- 
graphically)  :  1537,  1539,  1512. f 

2.     The  Apology. 
No  sooner  was  the   Catholic   Confutation  read,   August  3d, 
than  the  Lutheran  Princes  requested  a  copy  of  the-  same  that 
they  might  examine  it  and  make  good  the  points  to  which  ex- 

*  Kolde,  Einleitung,  p.  ]xi,     Healencyclopadie ,  X..  p.  133. 

t  Eealencycloi)adie,^  X.,  p.  134.  For  a  more  comprehensive  and  minute 
account  of  the  genesis  and  history  of  Luther's  Catechisms,  consult  Erl.  Ed. 
of  Luther's  Works,  vols.  21,  22;  Harnack,  vf  .supra;  Buehwald,  nt  supra; 
Kolde,  7f/  ■■iupro  ;  T!eole/lclldop(illil\"^  Art.  Katerhismen  Luther's. 


THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS.  261 

ception  had  been  taken.*  The  Emperor  promised  that  he  wouUl 
take  the  matter  under  eonsi deration.  The  next  day  he  called 
a  council  of  the  Catholic  Princes,  who  on  August  5th  presented 
him  with  an  Opinion,  in  Avhich  he  was  advised  that  "it  would 
be  better  to  give  the  Elector  and  Princes  a  copy  than  to  refuse 
it. 

"But  not  with  the  intention  that  they  make  a  reply  to  it^ 
but  that  the  Princes  and  cities  may  learn  and  understand  from 
it  the  articles  in  which  they  differ  from  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  may  again  unite  themselves  with  it,"  but  with  the  express 
declaration  added  that  they  were  not  to  let  it  pass  out  of  their 
hands,  nor  allow  it  to  be  printed.f  These  conditions,  which 
Melanchthon  in  the  Preface  to  the  Apology  calls  "most  peril- 
ous," the  Princes  were  unable  to  accept.  But  feeling  that  they 
must  defend  their  Confession  they  resolved  to  make  reply  to 
the  Confutation.!  Hence  Melanchthon  says:  "They  (the 
Princes)  commanded  me  and  certain  others  to  prepare  the 
Apology  of  the  Confession,  in  which  the  reasons  were  to  be 
presented  to  the  Emperor  why  Ave  could  not  accept  the  Confuta- 
tion, and  in  which  these  first  things -to  which  the  adversaries  ob- 
jected were  to  be  refuted. ' '  § 

But  as  about  this  same  time  the  Reconciliation  Efforts  were 
begim,  the  resolution  to  make  reply  to  the  Confutation  was  held 
in  abeyance — was  probably  forgotten  until  after  August  30th, 
when  the  Reconciliation  Efforts  suddenly  collapsed,  and  when 
the  Lutheran  consciousness  came  to  itself  again.  At  least,  it 
was  between  this  time  and  September  20th  that  the  Apology  in 
its  first  form  {Prima  Delineatio)  was  written,  as  we  learn  from 
Melanchthon 's  letter  of  that  date  to  Camerarius:  "I  am  now 
staying  at  home  on  account  of  the  speeches  of  the  malevolent, 
and  in  these  days  I  have  written  an  apology  to  our  Confession, 
which,  if  it  shall  be  necessary,  will  be  presented.  It  will  be 
set  over  against  the  Confutation  of  the  adversaries,  which  you 
heard  read.  I  have  written  carefully  and  energetically."  j| 
And  from  a  letter  Avritten  about  the  same  time  to  Egidius,  one 
of  the  Emperor's  chaplains:     "I  have  not  been  able  to  reply 

^  Bleidan.  p.  108;  Eng.  Tr..  p.  131. 

t  Original  in  Zeitschrift  f.  Eircheng.,  XII.  (1891),  pp.  156-8. 

%  Original  in  Forstemami.  II.,  p.  180  et  seqq. 

§  It  is  not  doeumentarily  certain  that  the  command  was  issued  to  Mel- 
anchthon and  others  immediately  after  the  resolution  of  the  Princes  to 
make  reply.  But  see  Sleidan,  p.  Ill,  Eng.  Tr.  13.5.  C.  E.  XXVII.,  p.  247. 
Francke,  p.  xxxiv.     Hase.  p.  Ixxxvi. 

ilC  E.  TI.,  383. 


2')2  THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

with  sufficient  fulness  to  your  Most  Reverend  Paternity,  for 
we  have  been  occupied  in  preparing  an  apology  to  be  delivered 
to  the  Emperor.  It  will  be  somewhat  severer  than  the  Confession 
was,  if  we  are  not  able  to  obtain  justice."  * 

These  two  letters  make  it  fairly  certain  that  the  Apology  was 
completed  by  September  20th,  and  that  it  had  been  in  course 
of  preparation  for  some  time — -perhaps  from  about  the  first  of 
September.  The  data  in  hand  will  not  allow  us  to  determine 
the  chronology  more  accurately. 

As  Melanehthon  had  not  heard  the  Confutation  read,  and  as 
he  could  not  obtain  a  copy  of  it,  he  had  to  depend  on  the  notes 

-  made  by  Camerarius  and  others  for  his  materials.!  Perhaps 
he  had  also  learned  from  some  of  the  Catholics,  who  served  on 
the  Reconciliation  Committees,  the  points  raised  in  objection 
to  the  Confession.  Inadequate  as  these  materials  were,  JMelanch- 
thon  and  his  associates  were  enabled  to  reply  with  a  fair  degree 
of  fulness  and  success  to  the  Confutation.  But  under  what 
circumstances  the  Princes  approved  the  Apology  in  this,  its  first 
form,  or  whether  they  took  any  formal  action  in  regard  to  it, 
has  not  been  reported.  We  know,  however,  when,  September 
22d,  the  preliminary  Recess  of  the  Diet  was  read  and  the  de- 
claration was  made  in  it,  that  the  Lutheran  Confession,  on  "the 
good  foundation  of  the  Holy  Gospels  and  of  writings,  had  been 
refuted  and  rejected,"  t  Chancellor  Briick  took  occasion  to 
hand  the  Apology,  prepared  both  in  Latin  and  in  German,  to 
Frederick  Count  Palatine,  the  Emperor's  spokesman,'  who 
reached  it  toward  the  Emperor,  who  was  in  the  act  of  receiving  it 
when  his  brother,  Ferdinand,  whispered  in  his  ear;  w^hereupon 
he  waved  it  from  his  presence,  and  Count  Frederick  returned  it 
to  Briick.§    The  Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  thus 

i    offered  to  the  Emperor,  but  was  rejected  by  him. 

This  prima  deliveafio  of  the  Apology  has  no  confessional 
significance.  It  was  published  in  the  Latin  text  by  Chytraeus 
in  his  Historia  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  1578,  and  more 
accurately  by  Forstemann  in  1835,  and  the  Latin  and  German 

*  C.  R.  II.,  381.  In  this  letter  to  Egidius,  Melauelitliou  defends  himself 
against  the  accusation  that  by  his  haughtiness  and  stubborness  he  had  irri- 
tated the  Catholic  Princes.  He  says  that  he  desired  peace  for  "no  reason 
except  that  he  saw  that  if  peace  should  not  be  established  it  would  come  to 
pass  that  ours  would  be  united  with  the  Zwinglians. " 

t  See  C.  R.  XXVII.,  227  et  seqq. 

t  Forstemann,  II.,  475. 

§  Salig,  I.,  340.  Spalatin,  Annates,  p.  197.  Sleidau,  p.  Ill;  Eng.  Tr., 
p.  135.     Kollner,  Symholil',  I.,  421. 


THE    OTHEH    OLD    LUTHERAN    ('ONFESSIONS.  263 

texts  are  botli  given  by  Bindseil  in  Vol.  XXVII.  of  the  Cor- 
jrus  Keformatorum,  pp.  275  et  seqq. 

The  next  daj",  September  23d,  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  and 
some  other  Princes,  with  their  suites,  left  Augsburg  and  turned 
their  faces  homeward.  The  defense  of  their  Confession  had 
been  rejected.  The  Recess  finally  gave  them  till  April  15th  of 
the  following  year  to  acquiesce  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Pope, 
which  the  Emperor  himself  and  all  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
world  professed.  A  copy  of  the  Recess  had  been  refused  them, 
and  the  Emperor  had  become  impatient  with  their  appeals  to 
their  Confession  and  to  their  consciences.*  Further  negotia- 
tions could  have  accomplished  nothing.  Indeed  the  minds  of 
the  Lutheran  Princes  had  become  irritated  by  the  unfairness 
shown  by  the  Emperor  and  the  Catholic  Princes,  and  they 
were  resolved  now  more  than  ever  to  stand  by  their  Confession. 
Melanchthon  especially  was  quickened  in  the  defense  of  the  Con- 
fession. In  Spalatin's  house  at  Altenburg,  he  wrought  at  it  on 
Sunday  until  Luther  took  the  pen  out  of  his  hand  and  told  him 
that  on  that  day  he  should  not  engage  in  such  work.f  Soon 
after  reaching  AVittenberg  he  received  a  copy  of  the  Confuta- 
tion that  had  been  made,  probably  by  a  son  of  Jerome  Ebner, 
who,  with  his  brother,  had  made  the  recension  of  the  Avigs- 
burg  Confession  that  had  been  sent  to  Niirnberg,  June  3d,  and 
Avho  stood  in  close  relation  with  AFelanchthon  at  Augsburg.t 

When  now  he  read  the  Confutation  he  became  more  than  ever 
excited,  when  he  saw  "how  insiduously  it  had  been  written,  so 
that  in  some  places  it  might  deceive  even  the  cautious,"  as  he 
afterwards  declares  in  the  Preface.  During  the  Autumn  of 
1530  and  the  Winter  that  followed,  he  seems  to  have  labored 
assiduously  on  it;  and  it  seems  to  have  cost  him  more  time  and 
toil  than  he  had  expected  at  the  beginning.  November  11th  he 
wrote  to  Veit  Dietrich:  "I  will  transcribe  (the  Greek  jNIasses) 
for  Osiander  when  I  shall  have  finished  the  Apology,  which  I 
am  nOw  revising  and  trying  to  put  in  shape.  I  will  there  ex- 
plain aU  the  principal  controversies.  I  hope  this  will  be  use- 
ful." §  On  N^ovember  13th  he  wrote  to  Camerarius:  "I  am 
wholly  engaged  in  revising  the  Apologi/.  I  will  elaborate  it 
carefully,  so  far  as  shall  seem  proper.  I  will  include  in  it  our 
controversies,  and  expound  them  all.  This,  as  I  hope,  will  be 
profitable."!!     In   February   he   wrote   to   Brentz :     "I   am   re- 

*  Sleidan,  p.  Ill ;  Eug.  Tr.,  135-6.  t  Salig,  I.,  37-5. 

tKolde,  FAnleiUmg,  p.  xxxvii.     §  C.  R.  TT.,  43S.  ||  C  R.  IT.,  440. 


2!54  THE    OTHER    OLD    LllTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

vising  the  Apology.  It  will  appear  much  enlarged  and  better 
fortified.  At  the  present  time  the  article  by  which  we  teach 
that  men  are  justified  by  faith,  not  by  love,  is  being  copiously 
treated,  because  on  account  of  the  propitiation  of  Christ  it  is 
necessary  to  understand  that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  and  that 
justification  by  love  is  justification  according  to  the  law  and  not 
according  to  the  Gospel.  The  Gospel  sets  forth  one  kind  of 
righteousness,  the  law  another  kind.  When  I  shall  have  finished 
it  I  will  send  it."*  Early  in  March  he  wrote  to  Hieronymus 
Baumgartner :  "I  have  not  yet  finished  the  Apology.  I  am 
impeded  not  only  by  poor  health,  but  also  by  many  other  en- 
gagements."! And  on  March  7th  again  to  Camerarius:  "My 
Apology  is  not  yet  completed.  The  work  grows  Avhile  I  am 
Mriting. "  J  March  17th  he  wrote  to  Cjjmerarius:  "IMy  Apology 
proceeds  more  tardily  than  it  ought."  §  And  a  little  later  to 
Baumgartner:  -"The  Apology  is  still  in  press,  for  the  whole  of 
it  is  being  revised  and  will  be  amplified  by  me,"  ||  April  8th  to 
Brentz  again  :  "I  have  almost  completed  the  Apology."  ]\  April 
11th  to  Camerarius:  "My  Apology  is  now  being  published.  I 
will  see  that  you  get  it."  **  About  the  middle  of  April  he  wrote 
to  Bucer :  ' '  My  Apology  is  published.  In  it  I  think  I  have 
treated  the  articles  on  justification,  on  repentance  (penitence), 
and  some  others,  in  such  a  way  that  the  opponents  will  under- 
stand that  the  burden  is  placed  upon  them."  ff 

From  these  and  from  other  letters  that  might  be  quoted, 
we  are  informed  of  the  progress  made  by  Melanchthon  in 
writing  and  in  publishing  the  Apology.  He  was  especially 
solicitous  about  the  article  of  justification.  While  the  work 
was  passing  through  the  press  he  actually  took  out  some  five 
and  a  half  or  six  printed  sheets  on  which  he  had  discussed  that 
subject,  and  replaced  them  by  an  entirely  new  treatment  of  the 
subject,  in  which  he  sets  forth  especially  the  essential  nature 
of  justification  and  the  relation  of  faith  and  good  work.^t 

But   while   Melanchthon    was   writing   the   Apology   he   was 
also  revising  and  editing  the  Augsburg  Confession.     Both  ap- 
peared together  in  print  during  the  latter  half  of  April  or  early 
in  May,  1531.  in  what  is  known  as  the  Latin  editio  princeps. 
''   Some  time  later  in  the  same  year,  appeared  the  German  editio 

.  *r.  E.  TL,  4S4.  II  C.  E.  II.,  492. 

t  ('.  R.  TI..  485.  ^  0.  R.  II.,  494. 

%  C.  R.  II.,  486.  **  C.  R.  II.,  495. 

§  C.  R.  II.,  488.  tt  C.  R.  II.,  498.     ' 

tt  C.  E.  XXVII..    385.    460  et    s(qq.      Kolde.    EinleiUmg,  p.    xxxviii. 
Miiller,  Einleiiung,  p.  Ixxxiv. 


THE  OTHER  OLD  LUTHERAN  CONFESSIONS.  265 

princeps  of  the  Confession,  accompanied  by  the  German  cditio 
princeps  of  the  Apology.  The  German  translation  of  the  Apol- 
ogy is  credited  to  Justus  Jonas  on  the  title-page,  though  he  was 
to  such  an  extent  assisted  by  ^lelanchthon,  who  made  so  many 
additions,  omissions  and  alterations  in  the  text,  that  this  Ger-  / 
man  editio  princeps  of  the  Apology  has  an  independent  signifi- 
cance. Hence  the  Apology  in  German  must  also  be  regarded  as 
a  work  of  Melanchthon 's,  and  as  containing  his  teaching  on  the 
subjects  discussed.* 

In  the  Autunm  of  1531,  Melanchthon  published  a  revised 
edition  of  the  Latin  Apology  and  had  it  accompany  the  second 
(octavo)  Latin  edition  of  the  Confession.  In  this  revised  edition 
he  made  some  important  changes.  For  instance,  the  citations  in 
Article  X.,  in  which  he  quotes  from  the  Greek  Canon  of  the 
JMass,  and  from  Theophilact  of  Bulgaria,  are  omitted,  and 
nothing  is  put  in  their  places.f  These  citations  are  also  omitted 
from  the  German  edition.  It  is  probable  that  they  had  given 
offense,  as  they  have  often  since  done,  and  were  omitted  to 
avoid  the  imputation  of  transubstantiation  that  is  implied, 
especially  in  the  words:  ''Vere  in  carnem  mutari."  In  sub- 
sequent editions  no  important  changes  were  made  either  in  the 
Latin  or  in  the  German  text,  though  there  are  a  good  many  ''"^ 

various  readings.! 

The  Apology  in  its  first  form  was  an  official  writing,  and  had 
been  prepared  under  command.  But  it  appears  now,  in  1531, 
under  the  name  of  ^Melanchthon,  who  in  the  Preface  tells  the 
reader  Avhy  it  was  written,  and  why  he  attaches  his  name  to  it.  j.- 

But  at  once  it  received  recognition.    Brentz  prized  it  so  highly  "^    v>'f^ 
that  he  thought  it  Avorthy  of  canonization. §    At  Schweinfurt,  in    '^ 
1532,  it  was  placed  along  side  the  Confession  as  a  symbolical 
book.  1 1    On  the  19th  of  November  the  Archbishop  of  Mayence 
sent   a   copy  to  the   Emperor  in   order  to  shoAv  him  how  the 
Christian  religion  was  being  brought  to  destruction.     Cochlaeus 

'Miiller's  Einleitung  in  die  S}imb.  BiicJier,  p.  Ixxxviii.  Kokle,  Ein- 
U'ttung,  p.  xxxix.  For  the  probable  date  of  the  publication  of  the  Ger- 
man Apology,  see  Kolde,  ut  supra,  text  and  note. 

t  The  citations  omitted  are  as  follows:  In  cjno  (Canone)  aperte  orat 
sacerdos,  ut  mutato  pane  ipsuni  corpus  Christi  fiat.  Et  Vidgarius,  seriptor 
ut  nobis  videtur  non  stultus,  diserte  inquit,  panem  non  tanlum  figuram  esse, 
sed  vere  in  carnem  mutari.   Miiller,  p.  164. 

t  See  Kolde,  Einleiitmg,  p.  xli.  Hase.  Ixxxviii.  ct  seqq.  C.  R.  XXVII., 
422  ei  seqq..  376-7. 

§  C.  R.  II.,  .512. 

II  Winekelmann,  Der  BchmaJTcaldische  Bund,  p.  305.  Plitt.  Apologie  der 
Augustana,  246  et  seqq. 


L^"- 


266  THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

reports  that  many  at  Rome  were  pleased  with  it,  and  that  he 
himself  had  been  asked  to  write  against  it.* 

The  Apology,  looked  at  in  itself  and  considered  with  refer- 
ence to  its  influence,  must  be  regarded,  next  to  the  Confession, 
as  Melanchthon 's  greatest  achievement.  No  other  work,  except 
the  Confession,  gave  him  so  much  anxiety  as  did  the  Apology. 
For  more  than  six  months  he  was  engaged  at  it  almost  to  the 
exclusion  of  everything  else.  We  do  not  wonder,  therefore,  that 
it  ranks  as  the  most  learned  of  the  Lutheran  symbols.  But  the 
learning  that  it  exhibits  is  not  pedantry.  The  author's  skill 
in  the  Scriptures  and  his  profound  acquaintance  with  the  teach- 
ing of  the  early  Church  were  employed  to  amplify,  to  illustrate, 
to  vindicate,  and  to  express,  with  a  revived  Lutheran  con- 
sciousness, the  doctrines  which  he  had  stated,  all  too  mildly,  in 
the  Confession  as  it  had  been  read  and  delivered  to  the  Emperor. 
Hence  the  tone  of  the  Apology,  while  dignified  and  respectful, 
is  also  polemical  and  aggressive.  And  yet  upon  the  whole  it 
is  so  practical,  that  it  may  be  profitably  read  as  a  book  of  devo- 
tion. Its  occasional  errors  in  exegesis  and  in  patristic  quota- 
tions are  due  to  the  age  in  which  it  was  written  rather  than  to 
the  man  who  wrote  it — an  age  in  which  the  science  of  exegesis 
and  the  study  of  the  Fathers  were  in  their  infancy.f  But  not- 
withstanding the  deficiencies  of  the  Apology  in  secondary 
matters,  and  its  objectionable  features  in  a  few  points,!  it  has 
always  ranked  as  a  theological  treatise  of  great  value,  and  will 
always  be  highly  esteemed,  as  it  has  been  hitherto,  because  it 
is  the  first  and  the  most  authoritative  interpretation  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession. 

If  now  we  turn  to  the  contents  of  the  Apology,  we'  may  say 
with  the  Estates  §  at  Schweinfurt  in  1532,  that  it  is  the  cor- 
relate of  the  Confession,  for  in  general  it  follows  the  Confession 
throughout,  article  by  article,  and  defends  and  expounds  the 
articles  as  they  have  need  and  also  with  reference  to  the  Con- 
futation, which  had  approved  some  articles  and  had  rejected 
others.  Articles  I.  and  III.  are  treated  very  briefly,  because 
both  these  articles  are  approved  in  the  Confutation.  In  Article 
III.  original  sin   is  declared  to  be  an  "active  hereditary  con- 

*  Kolde,  Einleitung,  p.  xl. ;  Zeitsclirift  f.  Eirclieng..  vol.  XVII.  (1898), 
p.  236;  Miiller,  Einleitung,  p.  Ixxxiii.-v. ;  Salig,  I.,  376-7. 

t  Miiller,  Einleiiiing,  p.  Ixxxv. 

%  We  refer  more  particularly  to  the  citations  from  the  Greek  Canon  of 
the  Mass  and  from  Theophilact,  noted  above,  and  to  the  declaration  that 
Absolution  is  truly  a  sacrament.     Be  Usu  et  Numero  Sacramentorum. 

§  Winckelniann.  p.  305. 


THE    OTHEK    OLD    TATHERAN    CONFESSIONS.  267 

tagion  by  which  our  whole  nature  is  corrupted,  by  which  we 
inherit  such  hearts,  minds  and  thoughts  from  Adam,  as  are  im- 
mediately opposed  to  God  and  to  his  first  and  greatest  com- 
mandment." Article  IV.  teaches  that  men  are  justified  before 
God  by  faith  alone,  and  faith  is  defined  as  a  firm  confidence  of 
heart  and  reliance  on  the  promises  of  God.  ''The  Creed  says: 
'I  believe  the  remission  of  sin.'  "  Articles  V.  and  VI.,  on  the 
j\Ieans  of  Grace  and  on  the  Fruits  of  Faith,  are  passed  over 
in  silence,  since  he  had  discussed  these  subjects  in  the  preceding 
article.  Articles  VII.  and  VIII.  are  taken  together,  because 
they  belong  together.  The  Church  is  not  only  an  organization 
having  external  rites  and  ceremonies,  "but  it  is  fundamentally 
a  society  possessing  faith  and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  hearts," 
though  there  are  wicked  men  and  hypocrites  in  the  Church. 
The  Creed  commands  to  believe  "that  there  is  a  Holy  Catholic 
Church.  But  the  wicked  are  not  the  Holy  Church."  In  Article 
IX.  it  is  declared  that  "Baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation,"  and 
that  "as  salvation  is  offered  to  all,  so  Baptism  is  offered  to  all, 
to  men,  women  and  children."  Article  X.  declares  that  "in 
the  Lord's  Supper  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  ad- 
ministered (exhibeantur)  with  those  things  which  are  seen,  * 
with  the  bread  and  wine,  to  those  who  receive  the  sacrament." 
By  Article  XI.  Absolution  is  retained,  but  it  is  declared  "that 
the  enumeration  of  sins  is  not  necessary  according  to  the  divine 
law."  Article  XII.  rejects  the  papal  doctrine  of  merits  and 
satisfactions,  and  teaches  that  those  who  fall  into  sin  after 
Baptism  can  obtain  pardon  when  they  repent  of  their  sins  and 
truly  believe  on  Christ.  According  to  Article  XIII..  "sacra- 
ments are  rites,  which  have  the  command  of  God,  and  to 
which  is  added  a  promise  of  grace."  "Therefore  Baptism,  the 
Lord's  Supper,  Absolution,  which  is  the  sacrament  of  repent- 
ance (poenitentiae),  are  truly  sacraments."  Confirmation,  Ex- 
treme Unction,  the  Priesthood  and  IMarriage  are  not  sacraments. 
In  Article  XIV.  it  is  declared  that  the  administration  of  the 
sacraments  and  of  the  Word  in  the  Church,  must  be  granted 
to  no  one,  unless  he  be  properly  called.  Grades  in  the  Church 
are  of  human  authority.  Article  XV.  favors  good  ordinances 
in  the  Church,  but  denies  that  human  ordinances  justify  us 
before  God  or  are  necessary  "to  salvation.  Article  XVI.  denies 
that  the  Gospel  abrogates  civil  government  and  domestic  regula- 

*  The  words  Quae  videntur  are  ambiguous  and  mav  be  translated  Which 
seem. 


268  THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

tioDs,  ■  ■  b\it  rci ach  rather  approves  them,  and,  not  only  on  account 
of  punishment,  but  for  the  sake  of  conscience,  commands  to 
obey  them  as  the  appointments  of  God."  Article  XVII.  briefly 
notices  that  the  Confutation  accepts  this  Article.  Article 
XVIII.  has  for  its  substance  that  "human  hearts  without  the 
Holy  Spirit  are  without  the  fear  of  God,  without  confidence  in 
God,  do  not  believe  that  they  are  heard,  that  the}^  are  pardoned, 
that  they  are  assisted  and  preserved  by  God.  Therefore  they 
are  impious."'  Article  XIX.  briefly  rehearses  the  statement  of 
the  corresponding  article  of  the  Confession  in  regard  to  the 
cause  of  sin.  Article  XX.,  on  the  relation  of  faith  and  works, 
has  as  its  central  thought  that  we  are  justified,  that  is,  "acquire 
the  remission  of  sins,  not  for  the  sake  of  our  works,  but  by  faith 
freely  for  the  sake  of  Christ."  and  that  "works  follow  the 
remission  of  sins."  Article  XXI.,  on  the  invocation  of  the  saints, 
which  article  in  the  Confession  was  wholly  rejected  in  the  Con- 
futation, denies  that  the  saints  are  mediators  of  salvation,  and 
denies  also  that  there  is  any  command  or  example,  either  in  the 
Old  or  in  the  New  Testament,  that  enjoins  or  establishes  the 
iinvoeation  of  the  saints.     But  "the  saints  should  be  honored." 

Of  the  seven  Articles  on  Abuses,  all  of  which  had  been 
rejected  in  the  Confutation,  five  are  defended  with  great  vigor, 
viz..  XXII.,  The  Abuses  with  reference  to  both  elements  in  the 
Lord's  Supper:  Article  XXIII.,  The  Abuses  connected  with  the 
refusal  of  marriage  to  the  priests;  Article  XXIV.,  The  Abuses 
connected  with  the  Mass:  Article  XXVII..  The  Abuses  con- 
nected with  Monastic  A^ows;  Article  XXVIII.,  The  Abuses  con- 
nected with  Ecclesiastical  Power.  Article  XXV.,  on  the  Abuses 
of  Confession,  and  Article  XXVI. .  on  the  distinction  of  foods, 
are  not  specifically  treated,  inasmuch  as  they  had  been  incident- 
ally discussed  in  connection  with  the  articles,  respectively,  on 
Confession  and  Human  Traditions. 

The  author  closes  the  Apology  with  these  significant  words: 
' '  Such  is  the  answer  we  at  present  make  to  the  Confutation. 
Now  we  p>ermit  all  pious  persons  to  judge  whether  the  oppon- 
ents rightly  boast  that  they  have  really  confuted  our  Confession 
out  of  the  Scriptures. ' ' 

3.     The  ScJimalkald  Articles. 
June  4.   1536,   Pope  Paul   III.   yielding  to  the   demands  of 
public   sentiment  and  to  the   insistence  of  the   Emperor,  pro- 
claimed a  general  council  to  assemble  at  Mantua  in  Italy,  May 


THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS.  269 

8,  1537.*  Through  his  Nuntio,  Peter  Paul  Vergerios,  he  ex-  " 
tended  an  invitation  to  the  Lutherans  to  be  present.  The  proc- 
lamation of  a  general  council  excited  much  interest  among  the 
Lutherans.  Consequently  the  Elector  of  Saxony  came  to  "Wit- 
tenberg, July  24th,  and  demanded  an  Opinion  from  his  theolo- 
gians and  jurists  as  to  the  manner  in  which  he  should  treat 
the  summons  to  attend  the  proposed  General  Coimcil.  At  the 
same  time  Chancellor  Briick  laid  before  the  theologians  and  v 
jurists  four  questions  to  be  answered,  the  substance  of  which 
were,  shall  the  Papal  Nuncio  be  heard  by  the  Elector?  If 
heard,  shall  a  protest  be  made  that  the  Pope  has  proclaimed  the 
Council  on  his  own  authority?  If  the  Nuncio  should  not  invite 
(vociren)  the  Elector  of  Saxony  as  other  Princes  were  invited, 
but  should  cite  him  to  appear,  should  a  protest  be  made?  If 
the  Pope  and  the  Bishops  shall  decide  things  according  to  their 
own  will  and  pleasure,  what  shall  be  done  ?  f 

An  answer  to  these  questions  was  to  be  sent  to  the  Elector 
within  fourteen  days.  Biit  anticipating  the  action  of  his  theolo- 
gians and  jurists,  the  Elector,  July  26th,  with  his  own  hand,  ,/?^ 
wrote  an  Opinion  on  Briick 's  questions  and  sent  it  to  the  theolo- 
gians and  jurists,  in  which  he  counseled  against  heeding  the 
invitation  or  citation  to  the  proposed  Diet,  chietly  because  ac- 
ceptance of  the  invitation  or  citation  would  involve  the  recogni- 
tion of  the  Pope,  as  head  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Council. | 
August  6th  ]\Ielanchthon,  assisted  by  Luther  and  Jerome 
Schurf,  prepared  an  Opinion  in  answer  to  Briick 's  questions  and 
to  the  Elector's  Opinio}i,^  in  substance  as  follows:  A  distinction 
is  to  be  made  between  citation  and  invitation  (vocation) ;  the 
legate  shoulfl  be  heard  so  as  to  learn  whether  the  Lutheran 
Princes  had  been  cited,  or  had  been  invited  the  same  as  other 
Princes.  If  it  appears  that  the  Elector  has  been  invited  (vocirt) 
as  other  Princes,  "then  the  Pope  shows  that  he  does  yet  regard 
these  Princes  (the  Protestants)  as  heretics."  Should  the  Prot- 
estant Princes  not  give  the  Nuncio  a  hearing,  "the  Pope  and 
the  other  Estates  would  have  cause  to  proceed  against  us  as 

*  See  Sleidan,  p.  161 ;  Eng.  Tr.,  p.  204.  We  have  followed  the  datea 
furnished  by  Virck.  Zeitsehrift  f.  Kireheng.,  vol.  XITI.  1892,  p.  487,  and 
Ijy  Kolde  in  Einleitung,  p.  Ixii,  and  in  the  Jiealenci/clopadie.^  XYII..  p. 
640.  The  Kostlin-Kawerau  Martin  Luther  gives  the  respective  dates.  June 
2,  1536,  and  May  23,  1537;  II.,  p.  376.  The  same  dates  in  Kitchen^ 
gescMchte  (Kawei-au),  III  .  p.  132.     See  C.  "R.  III..  99,  314. 

t  Virck,  ut  S'U])ra,  p.  507. 

t  Given  in  C.  B.  III.,  99  et  seqq. 

§  Kostlin-Kawerau,  Martin  Uither,  II.,  377,  669.  A'ir,.'k.  ut  supra,  p.  491. 
Healencydopadie,^  XVII..  p.  640. 


270  THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

contumacious.''  The  Council  will  be  held  whether  the  Protest- 
ants heed  the  invitation  or  not.  The  Pope  has  the  right  to  call 
a  Council,  but  the  decision  belongs  to  the  Council.  It  is  better 
to  attend  the  Council,  and  if  affairs  are  not  impartially  con- 
ducted, the  Princes  can  withdraw  and  make  complaint.* 

This  Opinion,  though  manifestly  wise  and  prudent,  and  based 
on  the  Canon  Law,  did  not  please  the  Elector.  He  did  not 
regard  the  proposed  Council  as  lawfully  called,  nor  did  he  think 
it  Avould  be  free  from  prejudice.  Through  Chancellor  Briick  he 
held  a  council  with  the  Wittenberg  theologians,  August  30th,  and 
had  Melanchthon  translate  into  Latin  a  Protest  in  which  it 
was  declared  that  should  the  Elector  and  his  allies  in. religion 
accept  the  invitation  it  would  be  on  the  condition  that  it  is  to 
be  "a  free,  pious,  Christian  and  impartial  Council,"  and  that 
they  "will  approve  nothing  contrary  to  the  pure  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel,  which  they  profess  and  Avhich  they  believe  is  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Catholic  Christian  Church,  "t  At  the  same  time 
Luther  received  a  commission  from  the  Elector,  in  regard  to 
which  Briick  could  report,  September  3d :  "  He  has  complied 
most  obediently.  I  think  he  is  already  hard  at  work  to  show 
your  Electoral  Grace  his  own  heart  in  the  matter  of  religion, 
as  if  it  were  his  last  will."  t 

There  is  scarcely  room  for  doubt  that  this  commission  has 
reference  to  the  composition  of  articles  of  faith.  But  the 
matter  Avas  delayed  on  account  of  Melanchthon 's  absence  in  the 
Palatinate.  On  December  1st  the  Elector  was  again  in  Witten- 
berg deliberating  Avith  his  theologians  in  regard  to  the  Council. § 
He  demanded  another  Opinion,  and  to  that  end  he  left  Avith  his 
learned  men  at  Wittenberg  a  memorandum  in  AA^hich  he  in- 
sisted on  the  rejection  of  the  proposed  Council,  and  in  Avhich 
he  absolutely  demanded  their  opinion  in  regard  to  the  calling 
of  an  EA'angelical  Council. j|  At  this  time  also  he  rencAved  his 
commission  to  Luther  to  prepare  articles  of  faith ;  1|  and  as  the 
matter  Avas  still  delayed,  on  December  11th  the  Elector  Avrote 
Luther  and  instructed  him  to  prepare  articles  and  to  submit  the 
same  to  him  by  January  25th,  folloAving.  In  these  articles 
Luther  AA'as  to  show  "Avhat  or  hoAV  much,  before  God,  and  AAdth 

*  Original  given  in  C.  E.  III.,  119  et  seqq. 

t  C.  E.  III.,  157. 

t  Kiistlin-Kawerau.  Martin  Luther,  II.,  378-9. 

§  C.  E.  III.,  195. 

(I  Virck,  ut  supra,  495  ef  seqq.    Sealencyclopadie,^  XVII.,  p.  641. 

if  See  references  just  given,  and  Kcistlin-Kaweraii,  Martin  Luther,  II.,  379. 


THE    OTHER    OJ.D    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS.  271 

a  good  conscience  can  be  conceded  or  changed,  out  of  Christian 
love,  for  the  maintenance  of  peace  and  unity  in  the  Christian 
Church."  He  was  also  commanded  to  invite  Amsdorf  and 
Agricola  and  other  theologians  to  come,  at  the  Elector's  expense, 
to  Wittenberg,  and  to  assist  in  the  preparation  of  the  proposed 
articles;  and  should  an.y  of  the  theologians  dissent  from  what 
was  written,  he  should  report  to  the  Elector  and  give  the  rea- 
sons for  his  dissent.* 

The  composition  of  the,  articles  now  went  forward  so  rapidly 
that  by  the  end  of  December,  or  at  the  very  beginning  of  Janu- 
ary', Luther  could  lay  them  before  Jonas,  Cruciger.  Bugenhagen, 
Amsdorf,  Melanchthon,  Agricola  and  Spalatin,  who  read  them 
and  discussed  them,  ' '  one  after  the  other, "  "  and  all  subscribed 
the  twenty-one  chief  articles  of  the  Christian  doctrine  which  the 
Keverend,  Highly-learned  Sir,  Doctor  ]Martin  Luther,  had  most 
purely  and  in  a  Christian  manner  composed."! 

Spalatin  made  a  copy  of  the  Articles  (which  is  now  in  the 
Weimar  Archives).  This  copy,  subscribed  bj'  the  theologians 
present,  was  sent,  January  3d,  by  Luther  through  Spalatin  to 
the  Elector,  together  with  a  letter  in  which  he  says  that  the 
Articles  were  discussed  several  days  by  the  theologians  and  sub- 
scribed by  their  own  hands.  He  declares  in  this  letter:  "We 
have  not  intended  to  burden  anybody  with  these  Articles,  but 
ourselves  alone.  We  leave  it  free  to  everyone  to  burden  him- 
self with  them  or  not  to  do  so."  On  the  7th  of  January  the 
Elector,  in  a  letter  tb  Luther,  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  the 
Articles  and  expresses  his  joy  that  the  theologians  still  persevere 
so  unanimously  in  the  Christian  Articles  "which  you  have  al- 
ways taught,  preached  and  written."  He  declares  that  they  are 
in  harmony  with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  says:  "After 
reading  them  through  twice,  we  accept  them  as  pious,  Christian 
and  correct,  and  will  freely  and  publicly  confess  them  before  a 
council  and  before  the  whole  Avorld. "  He  then  expresses  him- 
self as  opposed  to  ^lelanchthon's  view  in  regard  to  the  reten- 
tion of  the  Pope,  jure  hnmano,  that  having  escaped  his  Baby- 
lonian captivity,  they  will  not  again  surrender  themselves  to 
such  jeopardy.! 

*  See  the  Elector's  Letter  in  Bnrkhardt's  Dr.  Martin  Luther's  Brief- 
uechsel,  pp.  271-2.     Fealencydopadie,''  XVII.,  p.  641. 

t  Spalatin 's  Annah.'i,  p.  307.  Spalatin  says  that  the  theologians  met 
' '  immediately  at  the  beginning  of  the  year  in  Weyhnachten. ' '  We  may  say 
between  Christmas  and  .January  3d.  See  Zangemeister.  Die  Schmalkald- 
ischen  Artikel,  p.  xiv. 

J  Original  in  Kolde's  Analecta  Lutherana,  p.  285. 


272  THE    OTHEK    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS, 

Two  days  later  the  Elector  coinmissioned  Chancellor  Briick 
to  lay  the  Articles  before  the  chief  pastors  of  his  dominion,  and 
to  obtain  their  subscription  to  the  same.  "We  are  of  the 
opinion,"  says  he,  "that  the  subscription  of  the  pastors  and 
preachers,  should  God  Almighty  take  Dr.  ^lartin  out  of  the 
world,  will  serve  to  keep  the  pastors  and  preachers,  who  have 
subscribed,  steadfast  by  the  Articles,  and  will  prevent  their 
setting  up  doctrines  and  opinions  of  their  own."  * 

It  was  the  purpose  of  the  Elector  to  jaise  these  Articles  to  the 
authority  of  a  confession  of  faith.  Hence  the  Lutheran  Princes 
and  Estates  were  to  bring  with  them  to  Schmalkald  one  or  two 
theologians  that  "a  unanimous  agreement  may  be  made."  The 
Elector  and  Luther  reached  Schmalkald  February  7th.  The 
first  session  of  the  Convention  took  place  on  the  10th.  Chan- 
cellor Briick  counselled  the  theologians  to  confer  with  each 
other  about  doctrine,  so  that  should  they  attend  the  Council 
they  would  know  what  to  propose  or  what  to  concede.  The 
next  day  the  Estates  decided  "with  best  reasons  to  decline" 
the  Saxon  proposal.  They  gave  as  their  principal  reasons  that 
the  Council  would  not  be  held  in  the  near  future;  that  they 
had  not  been  summoned  to  bring  their  theologians  for  that 
purpose ;  ' '  also  they  had  the  confessions  which  had  been  delivered 
to  the  Emperor.  In  these  they  were  united.  Care  should  be 
taken  to  avoid  schism.  Should  any  concessions  be  made,  this 
could  not  be  conceded  from  the  Papists.  Should  the  Elector 
wish  to  present  articles  in  addition  to  the  Confession,  he  should 
submit  them  for  inspection."  The  Elector  and  Princes  also 
resolved  that  "the  theologians  should  consider  whether  any 
concessions  were  to  be  made  or  whether  there  was  anything  to 
be  disputed  in  the  Confession,  or  in  the  Concordia,  which  had 
been  recently  made,  but  they  should  examine  only  the  Confes- 
sion and  should  change  nothing  pertaining  to  its  content  or 
substance,  or  to  that  of  the  Concordia,  but  they  should  strike 
out  the  Papacy,  which  at  the  Diet  at  Augsburg,  out  of  regard 
for  the  Emperor,  had  been  omitted,  "t    And  at  the  same  time 

"  Original  in  Virck,  ut  supra,  p.  512.    Realencuclopadie,^  XVII.,  pp.  641-2. 

t  Aus  dem  Bericht  der  Strassburger  Gemndlcn  iiher  den  Tag  von 
Schmalkalden,  given  by  Kolde  in  Analecta  Lutlierana,  p.  296.  The  Con- 
cordia mentioned  here  is  the  Wittenberg  Concord  of  1536  (see  p.  245), 
which  at  this  Schmalkald  convention  was  now  endorsed  by  the  Princes  and 
was  thus  made  confessional.  Says  Melanchthon:  Ac  Principes  diserte  tes- 
tati  sunt,  se  fornnilam  concordiae  conservaturos  esse.  C.  R.  III.,  292.  And 
Kostlin-Kawerau :  "The  Princes  also  declare  that  they  wish  to  maintain 
the  Concordia."  Martin  Luther,  II.,  394.  Veit  Dietrich  reports  that  when 
everything  was  done,  Bugenhagen  called  the  theologians  together  again  and 


THE    OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    fOXKESSIONS.  273 

they  instructed  their  theologians  to  examine  tlie  Confession 
and  the  Apology,  and  to  fortify  them  with  new  arguments 
drawn  from  the  Scriptures,  from  the  Fathers,  from  the  coun- 
cils and  from  the  decrees  of  the  Popes.* 

Melanchthon  was  instructed  to  write  articles  on  the  Primacy 
of  the  Roman  Pontiff  and  on  the  Power  and  Jurisdiction  of 
the  Bishops.y  These  he  finished  February  ITth.i;  Both  articles 
were  presented  to  the  Princes,  and  both  were  signed  by  thirty- 
five  theologians  and  pastors, §  among  whom  was  Martin  Bucer, 
who,  in  a  colloquy  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  "affirmed  the  presence 
of  Christ  and  satisfied  all.  even  those  who  are  rather  hard  to 
please."  || 

This  Tractate  on  the  Power  and  Primaci)  of  the  Pope  and  on 
The  Poiver  and  Jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops,  was  the  only  con- 
fessional document  promulgated  by  the  Schmalkald  Conven- 
tion.^ It  was  regarded  by  the  theologians  as  in  harmony  with 
the  Confession  and  Apology,  and  has  been  treated  as  an  appen- 
dix to  the  SchmaUcald  Articles  and  has  been  published  with 
these  articles  in  Luther's  works  and  in  the  Lutheran  Symboli- 
cal Books. 

Luther's  Articles,  which,  as  we  have  learned,  were  not  ac- 
cepted by  the  Lutheran  Princes  assembled  at  Schmalkald,  were 
published  in  1538  by  their  author,  with  a  long  Preface  and  w4th 
many  changes,  under  the  title:  Articidi,  So  da  hdlten  sollen 
aufs  Concilium  zu  Mantua,  oder  ivo  es  wiirde  sein,  uberant- 
ivortet  wcrden:^^  that  is.  Articles  ivhich  were  to  have  been  de- 

proposed  nt  qui  velint  snbscribant  articulos  quos  Ijiitherus  seciim  attulerat. 
In  the  interest  of  peace,  the  matter  was  dropped.  Dietrich  adds:  "When 
I  saw  these  things,  it  pleased  me  also  that  those  articles  of  Luther  should 
be  omitted  and  that  all  should  simply  subscribe  to  the  Confession  and  to 
the  Concord.     This  was  done  without  any  objection."     C.  E.  III.,  372. 

*  C.  R.  III.,  267.  The  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  used  by  the 
theologians  at  this  Schmalkald  Convention  was  the  German  Fariata  of  1533, 
which  was  accompanied  with  the  Apologv  mit  vleis  emendirt.  Weber,  Ge- 
scUchte,  II.,  59  et  seqq. :  C.  E.  XXVI.^  699.  The  article  on  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  the  Schmalkald  Articles  was  originally  composed  by  Luther  in 
the  wording  of  the  Wittenberg  Concord,  but  was  changed  at  the  instance 
of  Bugenhagen  to  its  present  wording.  Kawerau,  III.,  p.  133.  Also 
Hausleiter.  Luther's  Lehen,  II.,  370. 

t  C.  E.  III.,  292. 

±0.  R.  III.,  267. 

§  C.  R.  III.,  286-7. 

IIC..E.  III.,  292,  371. 

Tf  Healencyclop'ddie,^  XVIL,  644. 
**  Erlangen  Ed.  (first),  25,  p.  109;  (second)  p.  163.  Luther's  original 
manuscript  as  it  was  brought  to  Schmalkald  in  1537  is  preserved  in  the 
library  of  the  University  of  Heidelberg.  In  1817  it  was  published  in  types 
by  Marheineke.  with  prolegomena.  In  1886  it  was  published  in  facsimile 
by    Dr.    Karl    Zangemeister.      The    original    is    without    Preface.      Both 

18 


274  THE  OTHEK  OLD  LUTHERAN  CONFESSIONS. 

livered  hy  our  I'arty  to  tJie  Council  at  Mantua,  or  wherever  it 
was  to  he.  In  1541  the  Articles  appeared  in  a  Latin  transla- 
tion under  the  title  Articuli  a  Keuerendo  D.  Doctore  ]\Iartino 
Lnthero  seripti,  Anno  1538  ut  Synodo  ]\Iantuanae,  quae  tune  in- 
dieta  erat,  proponerentur,  qui  recens  in  Latinum  sernionem 
translati  sunt  a  Petro  Generano  1541. 

Turning  now  from  the  history  of  the  Articles  to  their  con- 
tents as  the  same  are  given  in  the  Book  of  Concord,  we  find  that 
in  addition  to  the  Preface  they  consist  of  three  distinct  parts: 
"The  First  Part  is  of  the  High  Articles  of  the  Divine  Majesty; 
The  Second  Part  is  of  the  Articles  Which  Concern  the  Office 
and  Work  of  Jesus  Christ  or  Our  Redemption;  The  Third  Part 
of  the  Articles." 
l^  The  First  Part  consists  of  four  brief  articles  on  the  Trinity, 

y  .   \  in  which  it  is  said  "there  is  no  dispute  nor  contention  about 

c,       ,         these  articles. ' '     Part   Second  likewise   contains  four  articles. 

V  ^  .  •     .     . 

«<^   v^  (1)   The  Chief  Article  treats  of  Christ  and  of  justification  by 

faith  alone.  "Nothing  in  this  article  can  be  yielded  or  sur- 
rendered." (2)  Of  The  Mass,  "which  must  be  the  greatest  and 
most  terrible  abomination."  "It  is  not  commanded  of  God"; 
"It  is  an  unnecessary  thing. "  " We  can,  according  to  the  insti- 
tution of  Christ,  obtain  the  sacrament  in  a  far  better  and  more 
acceptable  way."  (3)  Of  Canonrics  and  Monasteries:  "These 
like  all  other  human  inventions  are  neither  commanded,  nor  neces- 
sary, nor  useful,  but  dangerous  and  productive  of  vain  labor 
and  trouble."  (4)  Of  the  Papacy:  The  Pope  is  not  jure  divino 
the  head  of  all  Christendom,  but  only  the  pastor  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  The  papacy  is  a  human  figment  and  has  been  erected 
by  the  devil.  The  Pope  is  the  true  antichrist,  Avho  has  elevated 
himself  above  Christ.  The  Pope  acts  as  the  devil  himself  when 
he  "urges  and  disseminates  his  falsehoods  concerning  Masses, 
purgatory,  monastic  life,  Avorks  and  services,  and  condemns, 
kills  and  tortures  all  Christians  who  do  not  prize  and  honor 
such  abominations  above  everything. " 

' '  In  these  four  articles  they  will  have  enough  to  condemn,  for 
they  cannot  and  will  not  leave  us  the  least  particle  of  one  of 
these  articles." 

these  works  are  in  the  hands  of  the  writer,  and  have  been  used  in  prepar- 
ing this  article.  In  the  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  it  was  originally 
written,  it  was  said :  Halten  wir  das  unter  brot  und  wein  sey  der  warhaftige 
leib  und  blut  Christi  im  Abendmal.  The  words  unter  and  im  Abendmal 
were  subsequently  stricken  out  at  the  dictation  of  Bugenhagen,  ein  heftiger 
man  und  ein  grober  Ponimer,  says  Melanchthon.  Studien  u.  KritiJcen,  67 
(1894),  p.  158. 


THE   OTHER    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS.  275 

The  Third  Fart  of  the  Articles:  "The  following  points  or 
articles  we  may  discuss  with  learned  and  reasonable  men  or 
among  ourselves.  The  Pope  and  his  Kingdom  do  not  concern 
himself  much  about  such,  for  conscience  with  them  is  nothing. 
It  is  only  gold,  honor  and  power."  Then  follow  fifteen  articles, 
the  majority  of  which  treat  of  doctrines,  and  the  names  of  forty- 
three  subscribers,  some  of  whom  also  subscribed  in  the  name  of 
others.  Melanchthon  appends  the  following  caveat  to  his  sub- 
scription :  "I,  Philip  ]\lelanchthon,  hold  that  the  foregoing 
articles  are  true  and  Christian.  But  in  regard  to  the  Pope  I 
hold  that  if  he  would  allow  the  Gospel,  even  we,  for  the  sake 
of  peace  and  for  the  sake  of  the  common  unity  of  those  Christians 
who  are  now  and  may  hereafter  be  luider  him,  might  allow  him, 
jia'c  h  11  ma  no,  the  superiority  over  the  Bishops  which  in  some 
sense  he  has. ' '  And  Dionysius  Melander  writes :  "I  subscribe 
to  the  Confession,  to  the  Apology  and  to  the  Concord  on  the 
subject  of  the  Eucharist." 

These  Schmalkald  Articles  are  the  most  positive  and  aggres- 
sive of  all  the  confessional  statements  of  the  Luthefan  Church. 
They  represent  the  mind  of  the  author  in  a  state  of  strong 
conviction,  and  in  a  state  of  intense  feeling  against  "opponents" 
and  "false  brethren,"  who  had  turned  his  writings  against  him 
and  had  slandered  the  Evangelical  cause  in  Germany.  Hence 
they  sound  the  tocsin  of  war.  and  set  forth  Luther's  ultimatum, 
' '  on  Avhich  he  must  stand  and  will  stand  till  his  death. ' '  The  two 
points  that  are  brought  into  the  greatest  prominence  are :  ( 1 ) 
The  doctrine  of  Justification  by  faith  alone,  since  "upon  this 
Article  depends  all  that  we  teach  and  testify  against  the  Pope, 
devil  and  world,"  and  (2)  its  attack  on  the  Pope,  who  is  called 
"true  antichrist,"  and  whose  doctrine,  "even  in  its  best  feat- 
ures, is  taken  from  civil,  imperial  and  pagan  law." 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  OLD  LUTHERAN  CONFESSIONS  AS  ECCLESL^STICAL  SYMBOLS 

TO    1555. 

By  the  words,  Old  Lutheran  Confessions,  in  this  chapter,  we 
mean  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Sehmalkald 
Articles  and  Luther's  two  Catechisms.  We  have  seen  that  again 
and  again  the  Princes  and  the  theologians  testified  that  the 
Confession  and  the  Apology  contained  the  doctrines  that  were 
held  and  taught  among  them.  They  maintained  and  insisted 
that  the  Confession,  delivered  at  Augsburg,  June  25,  1530,  had 
not  been  confuted,  and  that  the  Apology,  as  its  correlate,  more 
fully  explained  the  evangelical  teaching.  But  their  affirma- 
tions are  couched  in  general  terms.  They  do  not  state  specifi- 
cally the  sense  in  which  they  understand  these  witnesses  of  their 
faith,  nor  do  they  take  upon  themselves,  nor  allow  others  to  ad- 
minister to  them,  an  authoritative  form  of  confessional  obliga- 
tion. The  preachers  say,  in  general,  as  at  Sehmalkald,  that 
"they  hold  and  teach  in  their  churches  according  to  the  articles 
of  the  Confession  and  Apology. ' '  The  Princes  say  that  the  Con- 
fession and  Apology  contain  the  kind  of  doctrine  that  is  set 
forth  in  their  churches.  This  doctrine  they  believe  to  be  the 
universal  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ. 

1.  General  Principles. 
The  Reformers  enunciated  principles  and  dropped  incidental 
thoughts  by  Avhicli  we  are  enabled  to  determine  their  attitude 
towards  confessions  as  symbols  of  the  faith.  We  begin  with 
Luther.  In  the  Preface  to  the  Visitation  Articles,  which  have 
been  called  the  first  Protestant  Confession  of  Faith,  it  is  de- 
clared: "We  do  not  send  this  forth  as  a  rigid  command,  lest 
we  set  up  new  papal  decrees,  but  as  a  history,  as  a  witness  of 
our  faith,"  and  he  expresses  the  hope  that  all  who  hold  to  the 
Gospel  will  thankfully  accept  it  until  God  shall  bring  something 
better.  In  1538  and  in  1545  Luther  published  new  editions  of 
these  Articles,  still  under  the  old  Preface,  adding  each  time  a 
new  one.*     In  the  little  work  on   The  Three  Symbols   (1538) 

*  Erl.  Ed.,  23 :  1  et  seqq. 
(276) 


THE  OLD  LUTHERAN  CONFESSIONS.  277 

Luther  saj-s:  "I  have  observed  in  all  histories  of  the  Universal 
Christian  Church  that  all  those  who  hold  to  the  cardinal  doc- 
trines of  Jesus  Christ  have  remained  sure  and  steadfast  in  the 
Christian  faith,  and  even  if  they  have  erred  and  come  short  in 
other  respects,  they  are  still  preserved.  For  whoever  stands  fast 
in  this,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  true  God  and  man,  that  he  died  for 
us  and  rose  again,  he  has  and  holds  all  Articles."  *  In  1541,  in 
some  reflections  on  propositions  for  union  between  the  Protest- 
ants and  the  Catholics,  he  declares  "that  it  is  a  blessing  of  our 
Confession  that  it  tells  hoAV  it  went  and  stood  formerly  in  our 
churches,  as  when  we  listen  to  a  narration  and  not  to  a  treatise 
or  command.  .  .  .  Agreement  does  not  depend  upon  ceremonies, 
but  upon  the  substantial  and  the  principal  Articles"  (Haupt- 
stiicke).t 

Equally  free  was  Melanchthon  from  all  inclination  to  make  a 
law  out  of  the  Confession  which  he  composed,  or  to  consider  it 
a  final  statement  of  the  Lutheran  teaching  on  the  articles  which 
it  embraces.  We  have  already  learned  that  he  declared  that  he 
would  have  made  greater  changes  in  it  had  he  been  allowed  his 
OAvn  way.  He  also  inquired  of  Luther  whether  additional  changes 
should  be  made  in  certain  important  parts.  In  the  copy  of  the 
printed  Confession  which  he  sent  to  Luther  he  wrote :  ''Read  and 
correct,"  and  in  his  numerous  editions  of  the  Confession  he  intro- 
duced many  changes ;  some  of  which,  as  compared  with  the  Con- 
fession as  delivered  to  the  Emperor,  are  material.  At  first  i\Iel- 
anchthon  called  his  work  an  Apology,  and  even  after  it  had  been 
delivered  he  called  it  "our  defense,"  as  by  it  the  Lutherans  de- 
signed to  show  what  Avas  believed  and  taught  at  that  time  in 
their  churches,  and  to  defend  themselves  from  the  calumnies  of 
their  enemies.  And  that  at  the  first,  and  during  the  life-time  of 
the  reformers,  the  Confession  was  regarded  in  that  light,  the  most 
competent  Lutheran  historians  unhesitatingly  declare. 

Von  Ranke,  whose  learning,  penetration  and  impartiality  have 
become  almost  proverbial,  declares :  "  I  do  not  venture  to  assert 
that  the  Augsburg  Confession  dogmatically  determines  the  con- 
tents and  import  of  the  Scripture.  It  does  no  more  than  bring 
back  the  system,  which  had  grown  up  in  the  Latin  Church  to  a 
union  with  Scripture,  or  interpret  Scripture  in  the  original  spirit 
of  the  Latin  Church.  But  that  spirit  had  wrought  so  imper- 
ceptibly that  no  one  could  have  bound  himself  to  any  one  mani- 
festation of  it.     Our  Confession  is  its  purest,  its  most  genuinely 

^Erl.  Ed.,  23:    2.)8.  t  De  Wette,  VI..   280. 


278  THE   OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

Christian  manifestation,  and  comes  most  directly  from  its  source, 
It  need  scarcely  be  added  that  no  one  thought  by  it  to  set  forth 
an  abiding  norm.  It  is  only  a  statement  of  a  fact :  '  Our  churches 
teach ;  it  is  taught,  it  is  unanimously  taught ;  ours  are  falsely  ac- 
cused.'  These  are  the  declarations  employed  by  Melanchthon. 
He  meant  only  to  express  the  conviction  that  had  been  already 
developed.  And  in  the  same  sense  he  also  wrote  the  Second  Part, 
in  which  he  treated  the  abuses  which  had  been  abolished. ' '  * 
J.  T.  Miiller,  in  his  Introduction  to  The  ^Symbolical  Books,  says: 
"At  that  time  (1530-1540)  this  Confession  and  Apology  were 
always  regarded  as  the  general  Confession,  and  by  no  means  as 
symbolical  writings  in  our  sense  of  that  term."  Matthes,  in  his 
standard  work  on  Symbolics,  says :  ' '  Naturally  new  confessional 
writings  arose  in  both  Protestant  Churches  (as  in  1530  the  Au- 
gustana  and  the  Tetrapolitana),  but  it  is  clear  from  the  docu- 
mentary history  of  all  these  writings  that  originallj^  they  were 
to  be  only  public  witnesses  and  defenses  of  the  evangelical  faith, 
and  such  only  did  they  remain  for  a  long  time.  Some  of  them 
were  not,  indeed,  composed  by  official  authorization,  and  the  sole 
one  composed  in  the  name  of  the  entire  Evangelical  Lutheran 
party,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  was,  according  to  its  preface,  de- 
livered with  the  declaration  :  ' '  Therefore  we  present  and  deliver 
the  confession  of  our  pastors  and  our  o^^^l  faith,  as  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  Holy  Scripture  it  has  been  preached,  taught 
and  held  in  our  principalities  and  cities.  Not  only  did  Mel- 
anchthon  entertain  the  view  that  this  Confession,  after  its  de- 
livery, might  be  changed  and  improved  in  particular  parts,  but 
the  Evangelical  Estates  of  his  time  thought  the  same.  For  not 
only  did  they  not  reject  the  changes  already  in  the  edition  of 
1531  and  then  in  that  of  1540,  they  even  commissioned  their 
theologians  at  Schmalkald,  in  1537,  to  examine  the  Confession 
again  with  care,  and  if  they  found  anything  in  it  which  was  not 
in  harmon,y  with  the  Holy  Scripture,  to  change  it.  Likewise  at 
Naumburg,  in  1561,  they  declared  that  by  their  subscription  of 
the  unaltered  Confession  (but  this  was  already  the  altered  of 
1531)  they  did  not  mean  to  postpone  and  to  reject  Melanchthon 's 
varied  edition  of  1540,  'because  this  has  been  repeated  in  a  some- 
what more  stately  and  elaborate  manner,  also  explained  and  en- 
larged on  the  foundation  of  the  Holy  Scripture. '  And  with  this 
agrees  also  its  position  in  the  Augsburg  Religious  Peace,  at  which 
they  stipulnted  that  'the  Emperor  and  the  Estates  of  thi^  E:n- 
^  Deutsche  Geschiehte,  IIT..  Cap.   IX. 


\  AS    ECCLESIASTICAL   SYMBOLS    TO    1555.  279 

pire  should  oppress  no  Estate  of  the  Empire  on  account  of  the 
religion,  the  faith,  Church  usages,  ordinances  and  ceremonies  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  so  far  as  the  same  have  been  estab-  . 
lished  or  may  yet  be  estahlished  in  their  principalities  and  do-  : 
minions:'  all  which  shows  plainly  that  they  did  not  see  in  their 
Confession  an  unchangeable  doctrinal  standard.  But  had  Luther, 
as  has  been  related,  thought  differently  in  regard  to  ]\Ielanch- 
thon's  changes  and  improvements,  then  we  must  remember  that 
they  did  not  have  in  the  editio  princeps  the  very  text  subscribed 
by  the  Estates;  that  INIelanchthon,  even  in  this  edition,  had  made 
improvements,  and  that  Luther  had  allowed  himself  to  do  the 
same  in  the  publication  of  the  Schmalkald  Articles  in  1538,  after 
they  had  been  subscribed  by  the  theologians. ' '  * 

Rudelbach,  a  rigid  confessionalist,  in  trying  to  explain  the 
reasons  for  the  reception  of  the  Variata  of  1540,  says:  "It  must 
not  be  supposed  that  all  the  facts  here  presented  must  be  judged 
according  to  a  later  diplomatic  standard.  AVhile  people  lived 
more  in  the  clear  oral  word  of  the  Confession,  rather  than  preyed 
on  the  written  word ;  while  they  were  not  ashamed  to  receive  on 
trust  and  faith  that  which  was  supposed  to  have  sprung  from 
a  believing  heart  and  confession ;  while  still  standing  in  a  period 
of  doctrinal  development,  which  in  many  points  had  not  yet  been 
decided,  it  was  not  to  be  expected  that  the  letters  should  be 
weighed  and  the  syllables  counted  as  in  an  epigraph. ' '  r 

These  declarations  of  eminent  Lutheran  historians  are  not  the 
expressions  of  opinions  or  of  predilections.  They  are  the  state- 
ment of  demonstrable  facts.  The  Reformers  based  their  faith 
solely  on  the  Word  of  God.  They  regarded  their  confessions  as 
witnesses  of  their  faith,  as  testimonies  of  their  personal  convic- 
tion as  to  the  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God.  They  were  willing, 
indeed,  to  give  np  all  their  writings,  if  their  opponents  would 
only  consent  to  be  ruled  by  the  writings  of  the  Prophets  and 
Apostles.  They  resisted  and  resented  all  human  authority  in 
matters  of  the  Christian  faith :  and  they  were  too  conscientious 
to  violate  their  own  fundamental  principle.  It  would  have  been 
glaringly  inconsistent  for  them  to  renounce  the  tyranny  of  the 
Pope  for  the  pleasure  of  asserting  their  own  lordship  over  the 
consciences  of  their  brethren.  Even  the  decrees  of  councils  and 
the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  had  no  authority  for  them  in  view  of 

*  Comparative  Symbolik  aller  christlichcn  Confessionen  vom  Standpunlte 
der  evangelisch-lutherischen  Confession,  pp.  12,  13.  The  italics  are  Mat- 
thes's. 

t  Einleitung.  p.  107. 


280  THE    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

the  one  final  authority,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  they  always 
desired  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  Primitive  Church. 

Luther's  principle,  which,  ex  necessitate  ret,  w^as  the  principle 
of  the  Reformation,  is  admirably  stated  by  Kostlin :  "In  the 
Church  the  divine  life  exists  by  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  and 
of  the  means  of  grace.  Even  under  the  Papacy  there  are  pious 
persons  who  inAvardly  hold  fast  to  the  pure  grace  of  Christ  re- 
vealed in  the  Word.  Hence  the  Church,  illumined  by  the  Spirit 
through  the  Word,  is  the  infallible  ground  of  the  truth;  and  it 
is  highly  dangerous,  yea,  dreadful,  to  teach  anything  contrary 
to  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  Universal  Church.  But  in 
this  temporal  development  it  is  certain  that  the  Church  also 
errs  and  sins  ('else,  what  need  of  the  article  of  the  forgiveness 
of  sins.'  Erl.  Ed.,  25:59).  Only  that  which  is  based  on  the 
Word  can  endure.  Because  of  the  hidden  essence  of  the  Church, 
and  the  fallibility  of  the  ministry,  nothing  can  be  decisive  to  the 
individual  in  a  matter  of  faith  that  is  contested,  so  that  he  should 
confidently  rest  on  the  declarations  or  on  the  Scripture  explana- 
tions of  the  ministry.  Decisive  for  everj^  believer  must  be  the 
Word  of  Scripture,  which  is  immediately  accessible  to  him,  and 
which  is  never  doubtful:  and  every  layman,  by  virtue  of  the 
Spirit  which  is  given  him,  as  a  spiritual  man,  must  judge  all 
things  and  must  be  judged  by  noue  (against  Erasmus,  Jen. 
3:177).  If  thus  no  decisive  external  authority  is  to  exist,  the 
door  seems  to  be  open  to  strife  and  sects.  Luther  knows  that  the 
devil  Avants  to  make  tired  again  of  the  Scriptures.  If  now  men 
want  to  build  on  the  councils,  the  Father,  and  human  decrees,  the 
Scripture  is  completely  lost,  and  they  remain  the  devil's  alto- 
gether.   Only  God  can  save  and  help  us  (Erl.  Ed.,  30 :  16-20). 

"In  reference  to  the  ceremonies  of  worship,  as  the  external, 
changeable  dress  of  the  Word  and  sacraments,  Luther  remained 
throughout  by  his  original  fundamental  principles :  He  recog- 
nized the  beauties  of  the  rich  old  service  (Erl.  Ed..  64:  301  f.), 
though  it  lacked  exactly  the  chief  thing,  the  pure  Word.  He  paid 
no  attention  to  general  theories  and  ideals,  but  he  joined  himself 
to  the  present  need,  and  indeed,  to  that  of  the  weak,  out  of  regard 
to  this  and  also  out  of  regard  to  the  slanders  of  his  enemies  (Br. 
4:525),  he  recommended  a  definite,  uniform  order;  yet  he  saw' 
the  greatest  danger  always  in  the  too  great  estimation  of  the 
same,  in  a  new  legalism.  Hence  he  continued  his  very  strong 
declarations  against  all  insistence  on  conformity,  against  laying 
stress  on   externals   in   general,  yea,   against   all   eeremonialism 


AS    ECCLESIASTICAL    SYMBOLS    TO    1555.  281 

(Br.  6 :  379,  in  the  year  1545 :  '  I  confess  that  I  am  nnf avorable 
to  ceremonies  even  when  they  are  necessary,  but  I  am  hostile  to 
them  when  not  necessary')."  * 

The  facts  and  the  learned  opinions  exhibited  in  the  foregoing 
paragraphs  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  the  Reformers  did  not 
lay  stress  on  adherence  to  the  letter  of  their  confessional  state- 
ments of  doctrine.  They  concerned  themselves  Avith  the  sub- 
stance of  the  revealed  truth.  What  they  Avere  most  deeply  con- 
cerned about  was  that  the  Gospel  be  purely  preached  and  that 
the  sacraments  be  properly  administered,  as  over  against  the 
"howl"  and  "the  abomination  of  the  Mass"  in  the  Catholic 
Church.  The  center  of  the  Gospel  they  found  in  the  promise 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  This  was  the 
supreme  thought,  and  this  thought  permeated  the  Confession  and 
the  Apology  from  center  to  circumference.  For  subordinate  mat- 
ters and  for  formal  statements  they  had  little  or  no  concern. 
Hence  they  simply  name  the  Confession  and  the  Apology,  and 
declare  that  they  hold  and  teach  according  to  the  Articles  con- 
tained in  these  writings.  There  is  nothing  like  adherence  to  the 
letter.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  in 
1536,  ordered  new  Articles  for  the  council  that  Avas  expected  to 
be  held  at  Mantua,  and  again  in  the  Confessio  Saxonica,  which 
in  1551  was  prepared  for  presentation  at  Trent. 

But  because  the  Augsburg  Confession  was  both  a  political  and 
an  ecclesiastical  document,  it  constantly  came  to  the  front,  and 
the  Lutherans  Avere  called  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
It  was  made  the  basis  of  the  Schmalkald  League,  and  of  the 
Niirnberg  Religious  Peace.  Here  it  appears  more  particularly 
on  its  political  side.  In  1540-1  it  Avas  made  the  basis  of  negotia- 
tions AA'ith  the  Catholics  at  Worms  and  Ratisbon.  Here  it  ap- 
pears more  particularly  in  a  religious  aspect.  But  these  uses 
have  reference  to  its  external,  rather  than  to  its  internal  rela- 
tions. Hence  in  these  uses  the  Confession  cannot  be  considered 
as  a  symbol  in  our  sense  of  the  AA'ord.  We  must  turn  our  eyes 
to  the  internal  operations  of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  order  to 
see  Avhether,  and  how  far,  and  in  AA'hat  sense,  it  is  used  as  a 
symbol,  that  is,  as  an  authoritati\''e  and  official  statement  of 
Christian  doctrine  imposed  upon  or  voluntarily  accepted  by  th(5se 
who  teach  and  preach  in  the  Church. 

2.     In  Promotions  and  Ordinations. 
1.     Already  in  the  A'ear  1530,  at  the  command  of  Duke  Albert, 
*  Herzog,  Bealeneyclopadie,  Art..  Luther,  pp.  611-12. 


282  THE    OLD    LUTHERAN    COXFP:St5lONS 

an  episcopal  decree  was  issued  to  the  effect  "that  if  anyone 
shall  teach  anj^thing  contrary  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  he 
shall  be  excommunicated,  and  if  he  does  not  recant,  he  shall  be 
cast  out  of  the  Church  absolutely."*  This  action  determined 
the  ecclesiastical  relations  of  the  Ducln'.  It  had  introduced  an 
evangelical  order  of  worship,  and  now  it  stands  in  doctrine  rela- 
tively on  the  Augsburg-  Confession.  But  inasmuch  as  the  decree 
does  not  specify  the  sense  in  which  the  Confession  is  to  be  re- 
ceived, except  in  a  negative  way,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  had 
been  made  a  symbol  of  the  Prussian  Church.  The  ministry  was 
prohibited  from  teaching  contrary  to  the  Confession.  They  were 
not  commanded  to  teach  its  contents.  But  the  decree  undoubtedly 
gave  the  Confession  high  moral  standing  and  rendered  it  in- 
fluential in  reforming  the  Duchy. 

2.  The  Saxon  Visitation  Articles  of  1533  ordered  the  officials 
of  every  parish  to  introduce  the  following  books :  The  Latin 
Bible,  the  ( Jerman  Bible  complete,  Postils  of  the  Time,  all  of 
Dr.  INIartin  Luther's  Postils  of  the  Festivals,  Melanchthon's  Loci 
Commiines,  The  Instruction  of  the  Visitors.  Luther's  Two  Cate- 
chisms, The  Small  Hymn  Book,  The  Confession  and  Apology 
(German  and  Latin),  Luther's  German  Psalter  and  Summaries. f 
But  the  ministers  are  not  pledged  to  any  of  these  books  as  sym- 
bols, though  undoubtedly  it  was  intended  that  the  teaching  and 
the  preaching  should  express  the  consensus  of  all  the  books 
named,  inasmuch  as  they  were  supposed  to  teach  one  and  the 
same  evangelical  doctrine,  as  against  the  teaching  of  the  Papacy. 

3.  In  the  Statutes  of  the  Wittenberg  Theological  Faculty, 
written  by  Melanchthon  in  1533,  we  have  the  following  as  the 
first  article :  "As  in  the  churches  of  our  dominion  and  in  the 
juvenile  schools,  so  in  the  University,  in  which  there  ought  al- 
ways to  be  distinct  government  and  oversight  in  doctrine,  we  will 
that  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  piously  and  faithfully 
set  forth,  conserved  and  promulgated  in  harmony  with  the  Con- 
fession we  delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  at  Augsburg  in  the 
year  1530,  Avhich  doctrine  we  firmly  believe  to  be  the  pure  and 
uninterrupted  consensus  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  God. 

"Also,  we  do  most  strictly  forbid  the  propagation  and  defense 
of*  the  heresies  that  were  condemned  in  the  Nicene,  the  Con- 
stantinopolitan.  the  Ephesian  and  the  Chalcedonic  Councils.  For 

*  Url'undenbuch  zur  Beformatiovsgese^iehfe  des  Rerzogthums  Preuss^en. 
Paul  Tschackert,  I.,  p.  172. 

t  Richter,  KirchenorJii'ungen,  1..  228. 


AS    ECCLESIASTICAL    SYMBOLS    TO    1555.  283 

to  the  decrees  of  these  synods  in  the  explanation  of  the  doctrine 
of  God,  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ  born  of  the  Virgin  INIary,  we  assent,  and  we 
hold  that  they  are  truly  handed  down  in  the  Apostolic  Scriptures. 
From  the  Confession  it  is  sufficiently  clear  as  to  which  decrees  of 
the  later  councils  we  approve."  * 

The  "We"  who  speaks  in  these  Statutes  is  John  Frederick, 
Elector  of  Saxony,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  both  he  and 
the  Wittenberg  Theological  Faculty  believed  heartily  that  the 
Confession  contains  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel ;  and  as  little 
can  we  doubt  that  the  Wittenberg  professors  taught  in  harmony 
with  the  Confession.  But  this  Statute  does  not  bind  the  professors 
to  the  letter  of  the  Confession,  nor  state  the  sense  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel  is  in  harmony  with  the  Confession.  To 
say  the  most,  it  is  a  very  mild  form  of  confessional  obligation,  as 
the  Confession  itself  is  the  mildest  possible  statement  of  tlw 
Wittenberg  teaching.  And  we  know  that  the  Wittenberg  pro- 
fessors did  not  hesitate  to  make  additional  statements  of  doc- 
trine; as  the  Wittenberg  Concord  in  1536,  the  Schmalkald  Ar- 
ticles in  1537,  and  the  Wittenberg  Reformation  in  1545. 

4.  In  the  year  1533  the  custom  was  introduced  at  Wittenberg 
to  require  those  who  took  theological  degrees  (the  Promotions) 
^ '  to  affirm  that  they  embrace  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  and 
that  they  understand  it  as  it  is  stated  in  the  Apostles ',  the  Nicene, 
and  Athanasian  Creed,  and  as'  it  is  recited  in  the  Confession 
which  our  Churches  delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  in  the 
Diet  at  Augsburg  in  the  year  1530.  And  they  promise  that,  by 
the  help  of  God,  they  will  steadfastly  persevere  in  that  view  and 
will  faithfully  do  their  duty  in  the  Church."  ^Melanchthon,  who 
reports  and  defends  this  custom,  denies  that  its  object  was  "to 
institute  tyranny."  He  regards  it  a  prudential  measure,  having 
for  its -object  the  protection  of  the  Church  against  such  as  scatter 
dangerous  errors,  and  as  having  precedents  in  the  early  Church. f 

But  the  affirmation  is  general  in  its  character.  Melanchthon 
himself  calls  it  a  "promise."  and  "a  repetition  of  the  Confes- 
sion." It  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  confessional  subscription  in  the 
modern  sense  of  that  phrase.  It  does  not  characterize  the  Con- 
fession in  its  relation  to  the  Scripture,  on  which  the  Wittenberg 
Reformers  always  laid  the  supreme  stress.  ]Moreover,  it  was  so 
purely  local  that  Osiander  knew  nothing  about  it  until  nearly 
twenty  years  after  it  had  been  inaugurated.     In  very  words  this 

*  Fiirstemauu,  Liber  Decanonon,  p.  1-52.  t  C.  R.  XII.,  5  et  seqq. 


284  THE    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

promise  runs  as  follows :  "I  promise  the  Eternal  God,  Creator 
of  the  human  race  and  Founder  of  his  Church,  his  Son  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  that  by  the  help  of  God  I  will 
faithfully  serve  the  Church  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel, 
without  any  corruption,  and  that  I  Avill  constantly  defend  the 
three  Symbols,  namely,  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene  and  the  Atha- 
nasian,  and  I  will  abide  steadfastly  in  the  consensus  of  the  doe- 
trine  contained  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  which  was  delivered 
by  this  Church  to  the  Emperor  in  the  year  1530.  And  when  dark 
and  difficult  controversies  arise,  I  will  not  say  anything  on  them 
alone,  but  will  first  counsel  with  some  of  the  elders  who  instruct 
the  Church  and  hold  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. ' '  * 

The  promise  itself  and  ]\Ielanchthon 's  argument  make  it  per- 
fectly clear  that  this  formula  was  not  to  be  considered  an  un- 
conditional obligation  to  human  authority,  and  was  not  meant 
to  make  the  impression  on  the  subscriber  that  he  must  regard 
the  Confession  as  an  unchangeable  norm  of  doctrine.  It  binds 
unconditionally  to  the  Scriptures,  but  not  unconditionally  to  the 
Creeds.  It  binds  to  the  type  of  doctrine,  not  to  the  form  of 
statement,  as  is  shown  by  the  transaction  at  Sehmalkald  in  1537, 
and  by  the  Confessio  Saxonica  of  1551. 

5.  In  the  years  1537-1555  some  seventeen  hundred  ministers 
were  ordained  at  AVittenberg.  For  this  service,  at  least  from 
1539  on,  Luther's  Ordination  Formula,  either  German  or  Latin, 
was  used.  But  neither  formula  contains  even  the  shadow  of  a 
pledge  to  any  creed  or  confession,  nor  is  any  pledge  belonging  to 
that  time  and  place  known  to  exist.  But  Rietschel  thinks  that  a 
form  similar  to  that  employed  in  the  promotions  Avas  employed.! 
but  he  admits  that  he  does  not  know  of  any  such  formula  of 
subscription  or  pledge.  It  may  be  regarded  as  certain,  however, 
that  in  the  examination  that  preceded  the  ordination,  the  candi- 
date's doctrine  was  proved,  and  that  none  were  ordained  Avho 
did  not  understand  the  evangelical  doctrine,  and  who  did  not  give 
assurance  that  he  Avould  preach  and  teach  it. 

Of  this,  indeed,  we  have  documentary  evidence  in  certain  cer- 
tificates that  have  survived  to  the  present  time.  In  1540  Luther 
gave  a  certificate  to  Fischer  of  Rudolstadt,  in  which  it  is  said: 
"Having  examined  him  in  doctrine,  we  know  that  he  holds  the 
pure  Cotholic  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  as  taught  and  professed  by 

*  Salig,  II.,  984.     Eietschel,  Lviher  und  die  Ordination,  p.  82. 
t  Vt  supra,  p.  83. 


AS    ECCLESIASTRAI,    SYMBOLS    OF    1555.  285 

our  Church,  and  he  rejects  all  fanatical  opinions  which  have  been 
condemned  by  the  judgment  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ. 
He  has  also  promised  that  he  will  faithfully  deliver  to  the  people 
the  pure  doctrine  which  we  profess." 

In  harmony  with  this  brief  certificate  is  another  much  fuller 
and  more  specific,  given  in  the  year  1553  by  Bugenhagen  and 
Forster,  and  witnessed  by  ]\Ielanchthon,  Hostilius  and  Hetzer.  It 
reads  as  follows :  ' '  We,  the  pastor  and  preachers  of  the  Church 
at  Wittenberg,  testify :  The  bearer  of  this  certificate  produces 
evidence  that  he  has  been  called  to  the  ministry  at  N.,  and  that 
he  bears  a  Christian  character.  We  have  been  asked  to  examine 
and  ordain  him  publicly.  We  have  examined  him  carefully  and 
find  him  well  versed  in  the  pure  Christ ia)i  doctrine  of  the  Gospel. 
He  has  also  promised  to  exercise  his  office  with  diligence  and  to 
remain  steadfast  in  the  Christian  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  as  it  is 
confessed  and  taught  in  our  churches  by  the  grace  of  God  in 
harmony  with  the  true  CatJtolic  CJturcJi  of  Christ.  Therefore  is 
this  N,  N.  here  publicly,  according  to  the  command  of  the  Holy 
Scripture,  ordained  in  the  Church,  and  is  enjoined  to  preach  the 
Holy  Gospel,  and  to  administer  the  holy  Sacraments  where  he  has 
been  called.  And  we  heartily  pray  that  the  eternal  God,  the 
Father  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  will  give  able  teachers  to  his 
Church  as  he  has  commanded  us  to  pray  and  has  graciously  prom- 
ised to  give.  ]May  he  also  grant  to  this  N.  N.  his  grace  and  Holy 
Spirit  that  he  may  serve  the  Saviour  Christ  with  honor  and 
praise,  and  the  Church  unto  salvation.  We  exhort  and  admonish 
N.  N.  and  his  Church  faithfully  to  maintain  and  propagate  purity 
of  the  Christian  doctrine  and  to  transmit  it  to  their  successors. 
For  this  service  the  eternal  God  requires  of  all,  as  Christ  says  in 
John  15 :  Herein  is  my  Father  glorified,  that  ye  bear  much  fruit ; 
so  shall  ye  be  my  disciples.  And  where  this  light  is  kept,  there 
abides  the  true  Church  of  God.  In  this  Church  God  is,  and  will 
give  eternal  life,  and  in  all  the  troubles  and  anxiety  of  this 
transitory  life  he  will  give  help  and  deliverance  to  those  who 
call  upon  him.  For  where  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  is, 
there  he  will  be  and  will  hear,  as  Christ  says  in  John  15 :  If  ye 
abide  in  me  and  my  words  abide  in  you  ye  shall  ask  what  ye  will 
and  it  shall  be  done  unto  you.  Given  at  Wittenberg  Anno  1553, 
on  the  day  celebrated  in  memory  of  St.  Luke,  the  writer  of  the 
evangelical  history. ' '  * 

This,  like  the  other,  makes  no  mention  of  the  Confession.  It 
*  Quoted  with  italics  from  Johaunsen,  pp.  469,  470. 


286  THE    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

obligates  simply  to  the  Gospel,  as  the  Chnreh  at  Wittenberg  "be- 
lieved itself  to  hold  it  in  harmony  with  the  universal  Church 
of  Christ. 

Such,  then,  was  the  practice  at  Wittenberg,  where  from  1537 
to  1557  nearly  two  thousand  ministers  were  ordained,  and  Avhence 
they  were  sent  into  all  parts  of  Germany  and  beyond. 

In  the  Consistorial  (Jrder  of  Wittenberg,  or  Constitution  and 
Articles  officially  established  by  the  Elector  for  the  Wittenberg 
Consistory  (1542),  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  superintendents 
"to  see  that  the  pastors  and  ministers  of  the  Gospel  preach  and 
teach  in  harmony  and  conformity  with  the  holy  Word  of  God, 
and  to  that  end  they  are  diligently  to  study  the  Holy  Scripture 
in  order  that  thej'  may  faithfully  present  the  Christian  doctrine 
to  the  people,  and  keep  aloof  from  all  fanatics,  sects,  suspicious 
books  and  doctrines. ' '  * 

This  Order  defined  the  ecclesiastical  practice  of  the  three 
dioceses  of  Wittenberg,  Zeitz  and  Zwickau.  Emphasis  was  laid 
on  the  Word  of  God.  but  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Confession. 
In  other  lands  the  practice  was  the  same,  or  essentially  the  same, 
as  we  learn  from  the  Eirchenordnungen,  which  give  the  most 
perfect  representations  extant  of  all  the  internal  and  external 
operations  of  the  churches  of  the  sixteenth  century.  A  few  quo- 
tations from  representative  Orders,  exihibiting  the  usage  of  im- 
portant cities  and  countries,  will  serve  to  illustrate  the  correct 
custom  of  the  age — an  age  of  faith  and  of  godly  sincerity  on  the 
part  of  ministers,  superintendents  and  theologians — an  age  of 
reformers  and  martyrs,  who  were  neither  afraid  nor  ashamed 
to  confess  the  truth. 

The  Goslar  Order,  composed  by  Bugenhagen  and  Amsdorf  in 
1531,  requires  ministers  to  promise  ''to  preach  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  purely,  without  anj^  additions  and  fanaticism,"  and 
"to  confess,  publicly,  and  hold  that  Zwingli,  Caspar  Schwenk- 
feld,  Jacob  Cantius  and  all  their  followers  are  heretics  in  the 
Article  of  the  Sacrament  and  of  the  external  Word  and  sign."  t 

The  Brandenburg-Niirnberg  Order,  1533,  and  the  Saxon  Order 
of  1539  were  the  most  widely  used  and  influential  Orders  of  the 
sixteenth  century.  The  former  was  composed  by  Osiander  and 
Brentz,  and  the  latter  by  a  part  of  the  Wittenberg  Faculty  and 
others.  They  insist  on  the  preaching  of  the  pure  Word  of  God, 
and  declare,  the  former  especially,  that  the  Bible  is  plain  and 
simple:  but  neither  mentions  the  Confession  as  a  guide  or  di- 

*Richter's  Kirchenordmiugen,  T..   369.  i' Riehter,  I.,  p.   154, 


At;    ECCLESIASTICAL    SYMBOLS    OF    1555.  287 

rf-etory  for  the  minister,  nor  in  any  way  alludes  to  it.  So,  like- 
wise, with  the  Cologne  Order,  composed  largely  by  Melanehthon, 
and  so  very  generally  the  Orders  of  the  period  embraced  in  this 
chapter.  Even  the  Evangelical  Princes  assembled  at  Brunswick 
in  1538,  who  resolved  to  bind  their  heirs,  officials  and  subjects 
to  the  pure  Gospel,  make  no  mention  of  the  Confession.* 

There  are,  however,  exceptions.  The  Pomeranean  (Bugenha-v 
gen,  1535)  enjoins  upon  ministers  the  duty  of  preaching  the 
Word  of  God,  Law  and  Gospel;  "in  sum.  to  teach  of  faith, 
works,  and  the  sacraments,  according  to  the  Confession  and 
Apologj^  presented  to  the  Emperor  at  Aug-sburg  by  the  Evan- 
gelical Princes,  "t  In  the  Swabian  Hall  (Brentz,  1543)  it  is  , 
enjoined  that  "the  articles  about  w^hich  there  is  at  this  time 
dispute,  shall  be  understood,  taught  and  preached  according  to 
the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apology,  in  which  they  are  plainly 
discussed  on  the  firm  basis  of  Holy  Scripture. "  t  In  the  AViir- 
temberg  (1553)  it  is  said .-  "We  will  and  require  that  our  pastors 
and  preachers,  and  our  other  church  servants  shall  teach  and 
perform  church  acts  in  disputed  and  in  other  points  according 
to  the  contents,  directions  and  explanations  of  the  two  confessions 
mentioned"  §— the  Augsburg  and  the  Wiirtemberg. 

But  in  none  of  these  cases  is  there  subscription  in  our  sense  of 
the  word,  since  it  is  not  said  how  the  Confession  and  Apology 
are  to  be  interpreted,  nor  what  relation  they  bear  to  the  divine  -^ 
Word.  Such  a  thing  as  subscription  to  the  letter  or  to' the  words 
of  the  Confession  is  absolutely  unknown  the  first  quarter  of  a 
century  of  the  existence  of  the  Confession,  and  after  the  most 
thorough  and  protracted  examination  of  these  Avorthy  old  records 
we  can  say  with  Johannsen  :  ' '  The  most  important  Church  Or- 
ders of  the  Protestant  countries,  in  large  part  composed  by  the 
most  distingrtished  Reformers  themselves,  lie  before  us,  and  also 
the  use  which  was  made  of  them  is  clear  to  us  by  the  ordination 
certificates  preserved.  In  all  these  Church  Orders,  which  ap- 
peared before  the  Religious  Peace  (of  Augsburg.  1555).  there  is 
nowhere  an  unconditioned  binding  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 
or  to  any  other  symbolical  book,  but  only  the  requirement  that 
the  preachers  shall  preach  the  pure  Gospel  of  Christ  according  to 
its  pure  intent,  and  free  from  human  opinions. 

But  here  the  Religious  Peace  makes  a  conspicuous  and  distinct 
boundary-line.     For  the  later  Orders  bind  to  the  symbols,  and 

*  Seckendorf.  III.,  174.  t  Richter,  II..  p.  15. 

t  Richter.  I.,  p.  248.  §  Richter,  II.!  p.  132. 


288  THE    OLD    LUTHEKAX    CONFESSIONS. 

we  need  only  to  compare  the  later  editions  of  these  Church 
Orders  with  their  original  form  in  order  to  remark  the  essential 
difference.  This  occurs  almost  wherever  we  have  been  able  to 
make  the  comparison.  Only  the  Hanover  Order  presents  an  ex- 
ception, for  it  alone,  even  after  the  Religious  Peace,  yea,  even 
after  the  appearance  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  remained  un- 
changed as  it  was  in  1536."  * 

And  Rudelbach  has  said  essentially  the  same  thing:  "The 
Augsburg  Confession  on  which  1  here  fix  my  gaze  was  only  by 
degrees  formally  received  in  different  countries.  Subscription 
to  it,  and  that  by  reason  of  diverse  interests,  occurred  here  earlier, 
there  later.  In  some  places  even  its  reception  occurred  appar- 
ently only  incidentally,  inasmuch  as  an  earlier  national  symbol 
existed.  But  the  Confession,  despite  the  imperfect  reception, 
lived,  and  the  faith  it  expressed  and  confessed  led  the  steps  of 
our  confessors  to  the  sure  goal  of  the  Reformation  before  it  was 
brought  into  this  form. "  f 

But  we  have  not  discovered  in  our  investigations  that  Luther's 
Catechisms  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles  were  elevated  to  the 
rank  of  symbols  during  the  period  now  under  review,  though  the 
Catechisms,  as  we  have  already  learned,  were  among  the  books 
introduced  by  authority  into  every  congregation  during  the  Visi- 
tation ordered  in  1533.  In  the  Wittenberg  Order  of  1533  the 
minister  or  deacon  is  commanded  to  preach  early  on  Sunday 
morning  from  the  Catechism,  and  when  he  has  finished  it,  to 
begin  over  again;  and  "after  the  sermon  all  the  words  of  the 
Catechism  shall  be  said."  In  the  Saxon  Order  of  1539  it  is  en- 
joined that  Luther's  Catechism  shall  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of 
every  other.  In  the  Visitation  Order  for  Allstedt  (1533)  the 
pastor  is  required  "to  explain  the  Catechism,  namely,  the  Ten 
Commandments,  the  Creed  and  the  Lord's  Prayer,  according  to 
the  explanations  of  Doctor  Martin  in  the  Large  Catechism."  t 

Thus  the  Catechisms  early  came  to  a  high  moral  valuation  as 
books  of  elementary  instruction,  and  in  so  far  as  pastors  were 
required  to  teach  them,  and  to  explain  them  in  sermons,  they 
both  guided  and  expressed  the  faith  of  the  pastors. 

*  Verpfiichtung,  p.  538. 
t  Einleitung,  p.  188. 

t  See  Sehling's  Kirchenordnungen  XVI.  Jahrh.  in  the  foUo-sving  places: 
Pp.  191;  700;  272;  508,  in  I.  1.  for  the  data  in  the  original. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

THE  OLD  LUTHERAN  CONFESSIONS  AS  SYMBOLS  FROM   1555   TO  1580. 

The  Augsburg  Religious  Peace  of  1555  marks  a  turning  point 
in  the  history  of  confessional  subscription  in  the  Lutheran 
Church.  Prior  to  that  event  the  subject  had  received  very  little 
attention.  The  Lutheran  Church  was  in  a  condition  of  doctrinal 
development  and  of  revolt  from  human  authority.  Even  the 
Princes  who  had  subscribed  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  con- 
taining and  exhibiting  the  doctrine  and  faith  of  their  churches 
and  their  own  faith,  gave  their  theologians  instruction  to  examine 
the  Confession  again  in  the  light  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  change 
it,  in  case  they  found  in  it  anything  not  in  harmony  with  the 
one  only  Infallible  Rule  of  Faith.  The  occasional  obligation  of 
men  to  the  Confession  and  to  the  Apology  arose  from  diverse 
considerations  and  from  accident — not  from  a  deliberate  and 
united  purpose  to  bind  men  to  those  documents  as  symbols  of 
the  Lutheran  faith. 

But  it  began  to  be  different  after  1555.*  The  benefits  of  the 
Religious  Peace  could  be  enjoyed  by  individuals,  churches,  cities 
and  principalities  only  in  so  far  as  they  proclaimed  themselves 
adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  Catholics,  especially 
the  Jesuits,  who  had  insisted  on  confining  the  Lutherans  to  the 
Confession  as  it  had  Ijeen  delivered  in  1530,  were  quick  to  mag- 
nify every  departure,  seeming  or  real,  from  the  Confession  in 
that  form,  and  were  constantly  representing  to  the  Emperor  that 
the  Lutherans  were  violating  the  terms  of  the  Augsburg  Peace. 
But  despite  the  misrepresentations  of  their  enemies,  the  Luth- 
erans had  succeeded  in  having  the  terms  of  the  Peace  confirmed 
at  Regensburg  in  1557,  at  Augsburg  in  1559,  and  again,  after  the 
Council  of  Trent,  at  Augsburg  in  1566:  until  finally,  after  a 
contention  of  almost  half  a  century,  what  Luther  had  demanded 
at  the  Leipzig  disputation,  independence  of  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Pope  and  of  the  decision  of  councils,  Avas  now  secured. 

These  antagonisms,  and  the  watchfulness  they  induced,  brought 
the  Lutherans  to  a  distinct  consciousness  of  independent  exist- 

*  See  Dr.  Karl  Miiller.  Preussische  Jahrhilcher,  63.  Baud,  Februarv.  1SS9, 
pp.  124,  125. 

19  (2«9) 


290  THE    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

ence  as  an  ecclesiastical  party.  And  as  their  enjoyment  and 
transmission  of  religious  liberty  in  the  Empire  were  based  on 
the  Angsburg  Confession  and  guaranteed  by  adherence  to  the 
same,  it  was  but  natural  that  the  Confession  should  come  into 
prominence  as  a  symbol,  in  the  sense  of  an  authorized  statement 
of  the  Lutheran  faith.  Hence  subscription  to  it  and  the  naming 
of  it  in  the  Church  Orders  and  in  other  formulas  became  more 
frequent,  and  in  some  eases  the  form  of  statement  was  tolerably 
rigid.  But  movement  in  this  direction  was  so  slight  for  some 
years  as  almost  to  escape  detection.  Only  after  the  Diet  of 
Princes  at  Naumburg,  in  1561,  does  the  change  become  marked. 
Hence  Gieseler  is  quite  right  in  saying:  "In  the  older  Church 
Orders  there  is  usually  reference  to  the  Scriptures,  and  also  a 
compendium  of  doctrine  or  reference  to  other  books  or  guides, 
€.  g..  Luther's  Postils,  his  interpretation  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians.  However,  after  the  Augsburg  Confession  had  been 
subscribed  anew  at  the  Diet  of  Princes  in  Naumburg,  February 
8th,  and  was  recognized  as  the  standard  for  all  the  churches  of 
the  land,  it  was  more  frequently  made  binding  in  the  regular 
Church  Orders."*  The  Augsburg  Religious  Peace  gave  the 
occasion  for,  and  the  Naumburg  Diet  formally  introduced,  a 
change,  Avhich  finally  brought  rigid  confessionalism  into  the 
Lutheran  Church.  Therefore  it  is  this  second  fact  that  makes 
the  Naumburg  Diet  an  important  event  in  the  Confessional  His- 
tory of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

1.     The  Xaumhurg  Diet  of  1561. 

At  the  Colloquy  held  at  Worms  in  1557  it  became  perfectly 
evident  that  the  theologians  and  Princes  who  professed  adherence 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession  were  not  in  harmony  with  each  other. 
The  \Yeimar-Jena  theologians,  supported  by  Dul^e  John  Fred- 
erick, demanded,  as  a  condition  of  their  participation  in  the  Col- 
loquy, that  the  other  Lutheran  theologians  present  should  join 
them  in  "the  rejection  of  all  sects  and  false  doctrines  in  specie 
and  by  name,  as  those  of  Zwingli,  Osiander,  IMajor,  the  Adia- 
phorists  and  others,  "f  When  the  other  Lutheran  theologians 
refused  to  join  in  this  Protestatio  of  the  Weimar-Jena  theolo- 
gians, the  latter  left  Worms,  bitterly  denouncing  their  co-re- 
ligionists of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Thereupon  the  Catholics 
refused  to  hold  a  colloquy,  alleging  that  the  Lutherans  were  di- 
vided and  that  the  conflict  Avhich  had  arisen  made  it  doubtful 

*  Church  History,  IV.,  y.  400,  note  32.  t  C.  R.  TX.,  285. 


AS  SYMBOLS  FROM  1555  TO  1580.  291 

who  really  were  adherents  of  the  Aiigsburg-  Confession,  and  that 
they  were  bound  by  the  Regensbnrg  Recess  to  hold  a  disputation 
only  with  the  adlierents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.* 

Now  the  Jesuits  became  more  active  than  ever  in  their  efforts 
to  outlaw^  the  Lutherans,  that  is,  to  have  them  excluded  from 
the  benefits  of  the  Augsburg  Religious  Peace.  They  declared  in 
the  public  diets  and  in  other  assemblies,  that  the  Lutherans  had 
departed  from  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  had  published  dif- 
ferent editions  of  it,  and  had  changed  it,  so  that  it  was  impossible 
to  say  which  is  the  true  Augsburg  Confession.  They  also  declared 
that  even  the  Sacramentarians  had  taken  shelter  under  the  name 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  w^ere  scattering  their  false  doc- 
trines under  pretense  that  they  were  adherents  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.! 

The  reproaches  of  the  Catholics  were  just.  The  Lutherans  were 
not  united.  They  had  published  ditferent  editions  of  .the  Con- 
fession and  had  placed  the  later  editions  on  an  equal  footing  with 
the  earlier,  or  rather,  had  allowed  the  later  editions  to  exclude 
the  earlier  from  use.  At  the  Augsburg  Religious  Peace  they  had\ 
refused  ta  limit  themselves  to  the  Confession  as  delivered  in  the 
year  1530,  declaring  that  "to  draAv  matters  within  such  narrow 
limits  Avould  create  distrust,"  and  "that  it  was  best  to  follow 
the  Passau  Treaty,  in  which  the  Confession  was  named  in  a  gen- 
eral way,  without  the  year. ' '  i  And  it  was  true  that  Calvinists 
(not  the  Sacramentarians,  for  the  Calvinists  were  not  Sacra- 
mentarians) had  taken  shelter  under  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as 
they  could  not  be  excluded  from  doing  by  the  terms  of  the  Augs- 
burg Religious  Peace.  They  Avere  adherents  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  as  that  Confession  Avas  more  generally  understood 
and  most  AA-idely  used  at  that  time. 

The  situation  Avas  painful,  in  that  it  revealed  a  sadly  distracted 
Lutheran  Church.  It  Avas  perilous,  in  that  before  the  Council 
of  Trent,  about  to  reassemble,  the  Lutherans  might  have  to  shoAV 
cause  why  they  should  not  be  deprived  of  the  rights  guaranteed 
by  the  Augsburg  Religious  Peace. 

XoAV  it  Avas,  Avhile  confronting  such  a  situation  and  the  prob- 
abilities for  evil  that  it  manifestly  invoh-ed,  that  the  Elector 
Frederick  Palatine,  Diike  John  Frederick  of  Saxony,  Duke 
Christopher  of  Wiirtemberg  and  Palsgrave  Wolfgang  met  at  Hils- 

*  Fealencyclopiidie ,'  Vol.  XVII.,  p.  324. 

t  Anton,    Gescliichte    (Ur    Concordienfornul,    pp.    82,    8.3. 

t  Von  Eanke,  Seventh  Ed.,  vol.  V.,  262. 


292  THE   OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFKSSIONS 

bach  and  resolved  to  undertake  the  work  of  unification  in  the 
Lutheran  Church.  It  was  proposed  that  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion of  1530,  with  a  preface  and  a  conclusion  adapted  to  the 
times,  should  be  subscribed  anew.  Also  that  the  Apology  and 
the  Schmalkald  Articles,  in  so  far  as  they  concerned  the  chief 
articles  of  the  Christian  faith,  should  also  be  received.  Then  all 
the  Estates  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  nuist  pledge  themselves 
to  stand  by  these  confessions,  to  tolerate  no  sects  in  their  lands, 
and  to  permit  no  controversies  among  the  theologians.  It  was 
also  agreed  that  no  one  should  bring  any  theologian  with  him 
except  his  own  court  chaplain. 

John  Frederick,  whose  theologians  had  been  the  most  bitter 
and  violent  of  all  in  the  controversies  of  the  times,  was  the  most 
active  and  enthusiastic  of  all  in  these  preliminary  arrangements. 
When  an  agreement  had  been  reached,  he  went  to  Duke  Chris- 
topher apd  exclaimed:  "Brother,  give  me  your  hand!"  and 
after  reaching  his  hand,  continued,  ' '  I  say  to  you  on  my  honor, 
if  the  Augsburg  Confession  shall  be  subscribed  de  novo  and  the 
promise  shall  be  given  hinc  inde  by  the  Electors  and  Princes,  I 
will  so  conduct  myself  towards  the  Elector  of  Saxony  as  to  show 
him  that  he  is  to  have  a  true  friend  in  me,  and  may  God  torment 
me  if  in  this  matter  I  am  seeking  any  revenge  or  self-interest. 
It  is  time  for  us  to  be  getting  together. ' '  * 

John  Frederick  also  interviewed  Augustus,  Elector  of  Saxony, 
and  laid  the  plan  before  him,  both  viva  voce  and  in  writing,  with 
the  result  that  it  was  soon  agreed  to  call  a  Diet  of  the  Princes  to 
assemble  at  Naumburg,  January  20,  1561,  for  the  purpose  of 
signing  de  novo  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530,  so  as  to  repel 
the  bitter  accusations  made  by  the  Catholics,  to  promote  unit}' 
among  themselves,  and  to  consider  the  question  of  sending  a  dele- 
gation to  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  had  been  ordered  to  re- 
assemble.f  It  was  also  declared  that  no  secular  matters  and  no 
accusations  of  corruptions  in  doctrine  should  be  considered  at 
the  Diet,  and  that  no  league  should  be  formed. 

2.     Transactions  of  the  Diet  of  Naumhurg. 
According  to  the  Protocol,  the  following  ' '  Electors  and  Princes 
were  present  at  Naumburg,  January  20,  1561 " : 
Palsgrave,  Elector  Frederick  on  the  Rhine. 

*  Calinich,  Ber  Nmimhurger  Fiirstentag,  pp.  81,  82. 

t  Caliuich,  lit  supra,  p.  91.  Heppe,  Geschichte  des  Deutschen  Protestantia- 
mns,  I..  378.    Anton,  vt  supra,  pp.  82,  83.    Ecnlenc\icJopndie?  XIII.,  6G2-3. 


AS  SYMBOLS  FROM  1555  TO  1580.  293 

Duke  Angustus,  Elector  of  Saxony. 

Palsgrave  Wolfgang. 

Duke  John  Frederick  of  Saxony. 

Duke  Christopher  of  AYiirtemberg. 

Duke  Ulrieh  of  ^Mecklenburg. 

Dukes  Ernest  and  Philip  of  Brunswick. 

Margrave  Carl  of  Baden. 

George  Ernest,  Count  and  Lord  of  Henneberg. 

.Casimir,  Son  of  Palsgrave  Elector. 

Palsgrave  Wolfgang,  Cousin  of  John  George. 

Eberhart,  Son  of  the  Duke  of  Wiirtemberg. 

Landgrave  Philip  of  Hesse  and  his  Son. 

Landgrave  Ludwig  came  25th. 

Duke  Francis  of  Lauenburg.* 

The  Elector  of  Brandenburg  and  a  dozen  or  more  other  Princes 
were  represented  by  counsellors.  The  Diet  was  opened  January 
21st  by  the  Princes  without  the  presence  of  the  counsellors.  On 
the  23d  a  session  was  held  in  company  with  the  counsellors.  This 
is  regarded  as  the  first  plenary  session.f  In  all,  there  were 
twenty-one  sessions,  the  last  held  February  7th.  In  the  third  ses- 
sion the  Elector  Frederick  introduced  four  propositions,  as  fol- 
lows: 

1.  Inasmuch  as  the  different  editions  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession contain  many  variations,  the  different  editions  should  be 
collated  in  the  presence  of  all  the  Princes,  and  then  it  shall  be 
decided  w^hich  copy  shall  be  subscribed. 

2.  They  should  consult  whether  or  not  a  Preface  should  be 
prefixed  to  the  Confession  to  be  subscribed  anew,  in  which  the 
occasion  for  this  transaction  should  be  clearly  explained. 

3.  Whether  the  Emperor  should  be  informed  of  the  purpose 
of  this  Diet  at  Naumburg  by  letter  or  by  an  embassy. 

4.  It  should  be  considered  whether  and  how  the  Princes, 
cities  and  Estates  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  who  had  not  been 
invited  to  the  Diet  could  be  induced  to  subscribe.! 

In  the  fourth  session,  January  24th,  began  the  comparison  of 
the  different  editions  of  the  Confession.  Von  Minkwitz,  chan- 
cellor of  the  Palantine  Elector,  read  the  copy  of  1531,  and  Dr. 
Cracow,  counsellor  of  Elector  Augustus,  read  the  corresponding 
Article  of  the  edition  of  1542.    The  Elector  Frederick  held  in  his 

*  Calinich,  ut  supra,  pp.  133,  134. 

t  Calinich,  ut  supra,  p.  138.     Heppe,  ut  supra,  p.  381. 

t  Calinich,  ut  supra,  p.  140. 


294  THE   OLD   LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

hand  the  edition  of  1540,  and  Duke  Christopher  had  in  hand 
the  Brentz  manuscript  of  the  Confession.  Dr.  Briick,  chancellor 
of  the  Duke  of  Saxony,  held  in  hand  what  was  supposed  to  be  a 
copy  of  the  original,  the  Spalatin  manuscript.  The  comparison 
of  the  Latin  copies  occupied  this  entire  day  and  the  forenoon 
of  the  next  day,  while  in  the  afternoon  of  the  25th  the  German 
copies  were  collated.  The  next  day,  January  26th,  at  the  sixth 
session,  the  following-  points  came  up  for  consideration : 

1.  Whether  the  edition  of  1531,  or  that  of  1540,  or  that  of 
1542  should  be  adopted. 

2.  Whether  the  words  of  Article  X.,  in  the  first  edition,  "that 
under  the  form  of  bread  and  wane  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  present,"  do  not  seem  to  sanction  the  papal  transubstantia- 
tion. 

3.  Whether  the  argument  against  the  papal  procession  and 
the  carrying  round  of  the  Host  in  the  Article,  Of  Both  Species: 
Because  the  division  of  the  Sacrament  is  not  in  harmony  with 
Christ's  institution,  can  be  refuted  by  their  declaration  that  in 
the  Procession  both  forms  can  be  carried  round. 

4.  How  the  scruple  of  the  Elector  Frederick,  with  reference 
to  the  words  in  the  Article  of  the  Mass :  Our  Churches  are  falsely 
accused  of  having  abolished  the  Mass,  for  Classes  are  retained, 
etc.,  can  be  removed,  since  he  cannot  possibly  subscribe  this,  be- 
cause in  the  Palatinate  the  IMass  and  all  papal  ceremonies  have 
been  abolished. 

5.  Whether  in  the  new  Preface  it  were  not  better  to  make 
mention  of  the  Saxon  Confession  (Repetitio  A.  C),  w-hieh  is 
given  in  the  Saxon  Corpus  Doctrinae,  than  of  the  Schmalkald 
Articles,  and  whether  the  Articles  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  of  the 
Procession  and  of  the  ]\Iass  should  not  be  briefly  explained  de 
novo  in  the  Preface.* 

All  the  Princes  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  discussing  these 
five  points,  and  appointed  the  next  session  for  their  discussion. 

In  the  session  of  the  27th  the  question.  Which  edition  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  shall  be  subscribed,  and  which  of  the  other 
evangelical  confessions  shall  be  subscribed  along  with  it  was 
considered  ?  f  "  Elector  Frederick  declared  for  the  subscription 
of  the  German  and  Latin  texts  of  the  Confession  of  1540,  be- 

*  Heppe,  ut  stipra,  pp.  383,  384.  Calinich,  wt  supra,  p.  146.  Salig,  III., 
673. 

t  At  the  third  session  Dnke  .Tohu  Freilerick,  in  coiuiection  with  Palsgrave 
Wolfgang  and  Ulrich  of  Mecklenburg,  had  proposed  the  subscription  of  the 
►Schmalkald  Articles  in  connection  with  the  Confession. 


AS  SY-.MBOI.S  FROM  1555  TO  1580.  295 

cause  this,  in  meaning,  is  not  only  in  harmony  with  the  original, 
but  also  more  clearly  explains  that.  Yet  some  statements  must 
be  made  in  the  Preface. 

"The  Elector  of  Saxony,  had  the  Electors  and  Princes  present 
favored  it,  would  likewise  have  been  for  the  subscription  of  the 
Confession  of  1540,  and  that  for  the  reason  that  in  the  life-time 
of  the  Elector  John  Frederick,  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon,  it 
had  been  prepared,  accorded  in  vero  sensu  with  the  Confession 
that  had  been  delivered,  and  in  Church,  school  and  house  has 
been  used  without  question  up  to  the  present.  But  since  the  in- 
struction to  the  delegates  had  reference  only  to  the  Confession 
of  1530,  he  consequentl}'  favored  subscription  to  the  Confession 
of  1531,  which  was  the  second  print,  and  was  most  perfectly  in 
accord  with  the  first  (Confession).  In  this  way  they  could  also 
anticipate  the  allegation  that  they  had  now  subscribed  more  or 
less  than  had  been  delivered  at  Augsburg  Anno  1530,  and  in  this 
way  also  the  question  could  not  arise,  as  to  whether  the  Religious 
Recess  and  the  Religious  Peace,  which  was  established  for  the 
Confession  which  had  been  delivered,  are  to  be  held  or  not.  But 
in  the  Preface  the  Confession  of  1540  could  be  regarded  as  an 
explanation  of  that  presented  in  the  year  1530.  / 

"With  him  agreed  the  legate  of  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg. 

"The  Duke  of  Saxony  would  have  preferred  that  the  Latin 
and  German  text  of  Spalatin's  copy  should  be  received  for  sub- 
scription. But  since  the  other  Princes  and  the  legates  would 
accredit  no  authority  to  that,  he  was  satisfied  to  have  the  copy 
of  the  second  edition  of  1531  and  the  Apology  and  the  Schmal- 
kald  Articles  subscribed.  Reference  could  be  made  to  the  ampler 
( locupletirten )  editions  in  the  Preface. 

"For  the  same  edition  of  1531  decided  also  Palsgrave  Wolf- 
gang, Mecklenburg  and  Wiirtemberg,  the  latter  with  the  addition 
that  the  German  Confession  should  be  taken  from  the  manuscript 
copies,  and  that  the  Apology  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles  belong 
ad  deliberationem  de  concilio.  The  Preface  should  make  refer- 
ence to  all  the  amplified  confessions.  Also  the  Landgrave  of 
Hesse  decided  for  the  edition  of  1531,  but  wished  that  the  ampli- 
fied confessions  should  be  properly  estimated  in  the  Preface, 
because  they  reproduce  and  properly  explain  the  true  sense  of 
that  delivered.  The  ]\Iargrave  of  Baden,  the  legate  of  ^Margrave 
Hans  of  Brandenburg  and  of  Margrave  George  Frederick  voted 
with  the  Elector  and  Avith  Brandenburg,  the  latter  asking  that 
the  Apology,  the  amplified  Confession  and  Schmalkald  Articles 


J 


296  THE    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

be  mentioned  in  the  Preface,  and  with  proviso  of  a  further  ex- 
planation from  the  Word  of  God.  The  legate  of  Duke  Hans  of 
Mecklenburg  would  subscribe  no  copy  except  that  of  1530.  Hol- 
stein  and  Lauenburg  agreed  with  the  Elector.  Anhalt  accepted 
the  edition  of  1531  only  in  so  far  as  it  agreed  with  the  Confes- 
sion that  was  delivered;  but  if  hereafter  a  genuine  copy  be  dis- 
covered, which  contains  more  or  less,  then  that  shall  have  author- 
ity. Pomerania  abstained  from  voting,  and  the  Dukes  of  Liine- 
burg  had  only  received  written  instruction  to  remain  steadfast 
by  the  Augsburg  Confession. ' '  * 

When  the  Elector  of  the  Palatinate  discovered  that  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  Avas  not  opposed  to  the  edition  of  1540  on  principle, 
he  decided  to  stand  by  him,  but  wished  to  maintain  the  Frank- 
fort Recess  and  to  subscribe  the  Apology  and  the  Schmalkald 
Articles — the  latter,  no  doubt,  because  of  its  decided  attitude 
towards  the  Pope.  Finally,  on  the  28th,  it  was  agreed  that 
neither  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  nor  the  Frankfort  Recess,  nor 
the  Confcssio  Snxonica,  should  be  mentioned,  but  that,  instead 
of  these,  mention  should  be  made  of  the  Apology  and  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession  of  1540. f 

It  was  decided  that  oNIelanchthon 's  quarto  edition  in  German 
{editio  prince ps)  and  the  octavo  edition  in  Latin  should  be  sub- 
scribed— hotli  as  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530.  Some  have 
attributed  the  selection  of  the  octavo  edition  to  the  ignorance  of 
the  Princes  and  of  the  theologians  in  regard  to  the  different 
Melanchthon  editions  of  the  Confession  (see  p.  219).  But  a 
recently  discovered  letter,  written  by  the  Elector  Palatine,  July 
29,  1563,  seems  to  offer  a  solution  of  the  difficult  question.  This 
letter  says  that  the  octavo  edition  was  chosen  because  it  does  not 
contain  the  words  iincler  the  form  of  bread  and  wine,  and  that  the 
words,  mutato  pane,  etc.,  do  not  stand  in  the  Apology  that  ac- 
companied this  octavo  edition — a  part  of  which  is  an  error  and 
a  part  is  true.  The  words  sub  specie  panis  et  vini  never  appeared 
in  any  Latin  edition.  The  words  mutato  pane,  etc.,  Avere  removed 
from  the  Apology  that  accompanied  the  octavo  edition,  and  had 
not  appeared  in  the  German  Apology.  But  as  the  Apology  was 
held  to  be  the  proper  explanation  of  the  Confession,  and  as  the 
Apology — of  course  the  octavo  edition — was  to  be  mentioned  in 
the  Preface,  the  offense  given  by  Article  X.,  as  the  same  had 

*  Calinich,  pp.  160-162. 

t  Calinich,  p.  162;  Salig,  III..  680;  Heppe,  p.  387;  Eealencyclopddie,* 
III.,  665. 


AS  SYMBOLS  FROM  1555  TO  1580.  297 

been   explained  in  the  Latin   editio  princeps  of  the  Apology, 
would  be  removed.*    (See  pp.  264  ct  seqq.) 

In  all  probability  the  Elector  Palatine's  letter  gives  the  true 
reason  for  the  choice  of  the  octavo  edition  of  the  Confession  with 
its  attendant  edition  of  the  Apology.  The  evidence  is  conclusive 
that  the  choice  was  deliberate  and  purposeful.  But  why  call  this 
edition  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  15301  The  Princes  and  the 
theologians  knew  that  it  was  not  such.  The  ethical  situation  is 
not  explained  by  the  supposition  that  the  Princes  and  the  theo- 
logians thought  that  the  German  quarto  edition  was  the  Confes- 
sion of  1530.  But  the  evidence  is  conclusive  that  the  Princes  laid 
no  decisive  emphasis  on  auj-  particular  edition  of  the  Confession, 
since  in  their  estimation  the  editions  did  not  differ  in  their  teach- 
ing. Their  chief  aim,  as  the  sequel  shows,  w^as  to  vindicate  them- 
selves against  the  allegations  of  the  Papists  that  they  had  de- 
parted from  the  doctrines  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  And 
for  them  to  have  singled  out  any  one  edition,  and  to  have  said, 
th  is  is  the  Augsburg  Confession  which  our  fathers  deliA^ered,  and 
to  which  they  adhered,  and  to  which  we  have  adhered,  would 
have  involved  them  in  confusion  and  in  contradiction,  since  their 
fathers  had  adhered  to  all  the  ]\Ielanchthon  editions  with  equal 
tenacity,  and  had  employed  the  later  editions  in  diets ;  and  these 
Princes  themselves,  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  excepted,  had 
scarcely  known  any  other  than  the  later  editions,  and  had  used 
the  j\Ielanchthon  editions  that  appeared  after  the  editio  princeps, 
or  had  allowed  them  to  be  used,  in  their  dominions,  almost  to  the 
entire  exclusion  of  the  editio  princeps.  And  their  choice  of  the 
octavo  edition  to  represent  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  the  year 
1530  cannot  be  justified  on  the  ground  that  this  edition  bears  on 
its  title-page  the  declaration:  "Delivered  to  the  Most  Invincihle 
Emperor  CJiarles  Y.,  Caesari  Aug.  in  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  anno 
]\r.  D.  XXX.,"  for  the  same  identical  declaration  stands  on  the 
title-page  of  each  of  the  Melanchthon  Latin  editions.  The  only 
explanation  that  will  now  square  with  the  facts  is  that  given  by 
Calinich,  and  accepted  by  Kawerau,  "that  since  the  Estates  were 
not  yet  willing  to  confess  Transubstantiation  in  common  with 
the  Papists  in  this  controverted  article,  it  would  not  be  difficult 
for  the  Elector  Frederick  to  determine  them  in  the  case  of  the 
Latin  Confession  to  subscribe  the  octavo  edition."  t     But  they 

*  Calinich,    pp.    165,    166.     Kawerau    in    Eealencyclopiidie,    XIIT.,    665. 
Zeitschrift  fur  icissenschaftliche  Theologie,  1870,  pp.  419  et  seqq. 
t  Calinich,  wt  supra,  p.  166.    Kawerau,  ut  supra,  p.  665. 


298  THE   OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFP:SSIONS 

had  no  right  to  call  this  octavo  edition,  nor  even  the  German 
editio  princeps,  the  Augsburg  Confession  "which  at  the  Diet  in 
the  year  1530  had  been  delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  of 
tender  memory. ' ' 

But  not  less  significant  than  the  choice  of  editions  of  the  Con- 
fession was  the  Preface  which  was  prepared  by  the  two  Electors 
present  and  submitted  to  the  other  Estates.  This  Preface  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  addressed  to  the  Emperor,  begins  by  say- 
ing that  the  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  have  been  ac- 
cused of  not  being  united  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530, 
and  of  having  suffered  many  different  interpretations  of  the 
same.  To  this  they  reply  that  they  "tolerate,  suffer  and  defend 
no  other  doctrine  than  that  which  is  founded  upon  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  incorporated  in  the  aforesaid  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion," and  have  resolved  to  receive  no  other  doctrine  in  their 
lands,  churches  and  schools,  than  that  contained  in  the  said  Con- 
fession, and  to  reject  all  doctrines  that  are  in  conflict  with  it. 
They  declare  that  they  adhere  to  the  chief  symbols,  and  that,  as 
their  forefathers  delivered  their  Confession  in  the  German  and 
Latin  languages  to  the  Emperor  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  so  they 
adhere  to  the  same  Confession  as  it  was  published  at  Wittenberg 
in  the  year  1531. 

"Then,  although  afterwards,  in  the  years  1540  and  1542,  the 
said  Confession  was  repeated  in  a  somewhat  more  stately  and 
elaborate  manner,  explained  and  enlarged  on  the  basis  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  subsequently  was  again,  at  the  Colloquy  of 
Worms,  delivered  by  the  adherents  of  such  Confession  to  the  Im- 
perial President  and  Collocutors,  and  received  by  them  and  made 
the  subject  of  colloquy;  so  we  at  this  time  wish  to  take  in  hand 
the  said  published  Confession,  in  order  that  now  the  Emperor 
may  perceive  and  learn  that  it  is  not  our  intention  and  purpose 
to  defend  or  promulgate  any  other  or  a  new  unsupported  doc- 
trine." It  is  their  intention  to  abide  by  this  doctrine  and  to 
transmit  it  to  their  posterity. 

"But  by  no  means  is  it  our  intention  and  purpose  by  this  repe- 
tition and  subscription  of  the  said  first  printed  Confession  to 
deviate  in  the  least  or  suffer  ourselves  to  be  deflected  from  the 
Confession  as  explained  and  again  delivered  in  the  year  1540. 
For  the  same,  after  numerous  interviews  and  disputations  with 
the  opposite  party  in  regard  to  several  articles,  was  set  forth  the 
more  elaborately  in  order  that  the  divine  truth  might  so  much 
the  more  come  to  lis'lit,  and  that   faith  and  confidence  in  the 


AS  SYMBOLS  FKOM  1555  TO  '1580.  299 

satisfaction  and  merit  of  our  only  INIediator  and  Redeemer,  Jesus 
Christ,  together  with  the  rejection  of  all  human  traditions  and 
doctrines,  may  remain  pure,  genuine  and  uncorrupted,  and  may 
be  transmitted  to  posterity. 

"Thus  we  deviate  from  the  same  just  as  little  as  from  that  of 
our  fathers,  and  in  part  our  own  Confession,  that  was  delivered. 
And  we  are  moved  to  this  all  the  more  because  this  explained 
Confession,  which  was  published  in  the  years  1540  and  1542,  is 
now  in  use  in  the  most  of  our  schools  and  churches. 

' '  In  like  manner  also  we  wish  expressly  to  repeat  and  to  con- 
fess the  Apology  which  by  our  forefathers,  and  in  part  by  us,  was 
offered  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  but  was  not  received,  in  the 
form  in  Avhich  it  was  subsequently  printed  at  Wittenberg  and 
presented  at  the  Colloquy  of  Worms  in  the  year  1540  in  connec- 
tion with  the  aforesaid  improved  Confession." 

They  hold  themselves  to  this  repeated  Confession  and  Apology, 
and  while  they  reject  transubstantiation,  "they  do  not  deny  the 
true  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's 
Supper,"  and  in  the  Supper  Christ  is  truly  present,  and  "mth 
bread  and  wine,  as  appointed  by  himself,  gives  his  body  and 
blood  to  Christians,  to  be  eaten  and  to  be  drunk." 

"The  said  Augsburg  Christian  Confession,  subscribed  anew," 
they  present  to  the  Emperor  as  evidence  of  their  agreement  in 
doctrine,  and  as  a  refutation  of  the  slanders  that  have  been 
brought  to  him  about  their  disagreement  in  doctrine  and  their 
departure  from  the  Augsburg  Confession.* 

Friday,  February  7th,  the  Preface  and  the  Confession  were 
signed  and  sealed  by  the  two  Electors  present  and  by  a  dozen 
other  Princes  or  by  their  representatives,  and  they  all  pledged 
themselves  to  influence  other  rulers  and  cities  to  join  them  in 
subscribing  the  Confession  and  the  Preface.  But  John  Fred- 
erick of  Saxony  and  Ulrich  of  Mecklenburg,  at  the  instance  of 
their  theologians,  had  refused  to  subscribe,  giving  as  the  reason, 
that  injurious  errors,  especially  those  of  the  Sacramentarians, 
had  not  been  expressly  mentioned  and  condemned. 

John  Frederick  also  made  a  formal  written  protest  against  the 
Preface,  when  its  contents  became  known  to  him.t  and  already, 

*  Original  text  printed  with  modernized  spelling  in  Struve,  Pfdltzische 
Eirchen-H.,  pp.  132  ef  seqq.  Also  in  the  original  spelling  in  Weber  II., 
Beilage.  Given  also  by  Honn  in  his  Historia  des  von  JDenen  Evangeiisten 
Standen  Anno  1561.  Zu  Naumburg  (1704),  pp.  99  et  seqq.  Honn  gives 
the  names  of  the  subscribers,  pp.  114-115.  Twenty-six  names  m  all  are 
attached  to  the  document,  but  only  fourteen  with  seals. 

tSalig,  III.,  652  et  seqq.     Gieseler.  Church  History.  IV.,  45o.     Bealen- 


300  THE    OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

February  3d,  four  days  before  the  Preface  was  signed,  he  stole 
away  between  five  and  six  o'clock  in  the  morning-,  and  returned 
to  Weimar,  followed  by  his  counsellors  and  theologians. 

Thus  the  very  man  who,  at  Hilsbach,  had  insisted  that  the 
Princes  should  not  be  attended  by  their  theologians,  was  the  very 
man  who  allowed  himself  to  be  most  influenced  by  his  theologians. 
He  had  brought  with  him  two  of  the  most  violent  of  the  Flacian- 
ists,  Stossel  and  IMorlin,  and  the  Jena  Flacianists  had  sent  Mat- 
thew Judex  to  act  as  lobbyist.  These,  together  with  Chytraeus, 
did  all  that  they  could  to  keep  the  Duke  from  subscribing  the 
Preface.  Finally,  when  Morlin  and  Stossel  declared  that  if  he 
signed  the  Preface  they  would  lay  dow^n  their  office  and  with- 
draw from  his  service,  he  replied  that  he  would  mount  his  horse 
and  leave  with  them  before  he  would  sign  a  Preface  in  which 
the  errors  had  not  been  condemned;*  and  yet  it  had  been  dis- 
tinctly declared  in  calling  the  Diet  that  neither  secular  matters 
nor  corruptions  were  to  be  mentioned. 

Thus  the  chief  purpose  for  which  the  Diet  was  called,  namely, 
to  present  a  united  Lutheran  front  against  the  allegations  of  the 
Catholics,  was,  in  large  part,  defeated  by  the  Flacianists,  whose 
policy  it  had  been,  and  was  and  remained,  that  they  would  not 
unite  with  other  Lutherans  on  their  Confession  and  Apology, 
except  upon  the  condition  that  the  others  unite  with  them  in 
their  sweeping  condemnation  of  errors  and  errorists.  that  is,  in 
effect,  accept  their  own  Confutation  Booh  of  1559,  in  which  they 
publish:  1.  Confutation  of  the  Error  of  Servetus.  2.  Confu- 
tation of  the  Error  of  Schwenckfcld.  3.  Confutation  of  the 
Error  of  the  Antinomians.  4,  Confutation  of  the  Error  of  the 
Anabaptists.  5,  Confutation  of  the  Corruptions  of  Zwingli  and 
Calvin  in  Regard  to  the  Lordh  Supper.  6.  Confutation  of  the 
Corruption  in  the  Article  of  Free-will.  7.  Confutation  of  the 
Errors  of  Osiander  and  Stancar  in  the  Article  of  Justification. 
8.  Confutation  of  the  Error  of  Major,  that  Good  Works  are 
Necessary  to  Salvation.    9.  Confutation  of  Adiaphorism. 

To  this  Confutation  Book,  which  in  its  final  shaping  exper- 
ienced the  hand  of  Flaeius,  the  pastors  and  theologians  of  Ducal 
Saxony  were  commanded  to  subscribe.  Hence  at  its  bottom  this 
opposition  of  John  Frederick  to  the  Preface  of  the  Princes  was 
essentially  a  strife  between  the  Flacianists  and  the  Princes,  or 

cyclopadie,^  XV.,  p.  326.  The  Protest  is  given  by  Honn,  ut  supra,  pp.  42  et 
seqq.,  and  is  dated,  Naumburg,  am  2.  Febr.  1561. 

*  Preger  Matthias  Flaeius  Illyricus,  II.,  98 ;  Calinich,  ut  supra,  pp.  141 
€t  seqq.;  151  et  seqq.;  185  et  seqq.     Salig,  III.,  686-690. 


AS  SYMBOLS  FROM  1555  TO  1580.  301 

more  accurately  described,  it  was  a  conflict  between  John  Fred- 
erick, led  by  the  Flacianists,  who  were  bitterly  antagonistic  to 
Leipzig  and  Wittenberg,  and  to  the  other  Princes ;  or,  narrowed 
down  to  its  minutest  point,  it  was  a  new  outburst  of  the  hate 
entertained  by  Duke  John  Frederick  towards  the  Elector  Augus- 
tus, whose  brother,  ]\laurice,  had  dispossessed  the  Duke's  father 
of  the  Electorate.  Thus  political  animosity  entered  as  a  factor 
into  the  conduct  of  John  Frederick  at  Naumburg.  Here,  as  else- 
where, John  Frederick  breathed  a  spirit  of  bigotry  and  of  narrow 
exclusiveness,  which  has  ever  since  haunted  portions  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church,  and  has  made  it  weak  where  it  ought  to  have  been, 
and  ought  to  be,  strong.  But,  as  is  usual  with  men  of  the  Flae- 
ianist  temper,  these  extremists  soon  fell  out  among  themselves. 
"They  who  were  chiefly  at  fault  in  frustrating  union,"  says 
Wangemann,  "were  the  first  to  be  punished.  The  Flacianist 
theologians  at  Jena,  who,  through  their  influence  on  John  Fred- 
erick, strengthened  him  in  his  resistance,  fell  that  same  year  un- 
der his  displeasure  on  account  of  their  resistance  to  his  ducal 
command  with  reference  to  the  Saxon  Consistorial  Order. 
and  were  dismissed.  Diike  John  Frederick  himself,  who,  by 
the  interview^  at  Hilsbach,  had  given  occasion  for  the  Naum- 
burg Diet,  and  who  afterwards,  by  his  protest,  con- 
tributed most  to  defeat  its  purposes  and  designs — defiant,  stub- 
born, capricious,  wholly  accessible  to  evil  counsel  and  passionate 
insinuations — went  blindly  to  his  inevitable  fate ' '  * — the  loss  of 
his  ducal  authority  and  life-long  imprisonment,  while  the  very 
theologians  who  counselled  him  at  Naumburg*  denounced  his  Con- 
sistorial Order  as  "  Ca3saropapism. " 

2.  Theological  Estimates. 
Turning  now  from  the  transactions  of  the  Naumburg  Diet  to 
theological  estimates  of  those  transactions,  we  naturally  may  ex- 
pect to  find  differences  of  opinion.  "Those  to  whom  the  Flacian- 
ist sect  had  transmitted  and  communicated  their  rigid  orthodoxy 
and  their  Symhololatry,  have  much  evil  to  speak  about  it.  On 
the  contrary,  the  Reformed  boast  that  the  Princes  at  Naumburg 
endorsed  the  Altered  Confession,  consequently,  the  Reformed 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Sacrament."  These  are  the  extremes  of 
opinion,  and  neither  is  justified  by  the  facts.  The  Naumburg 
Diet  expressed  a  large  amount  of  united  sentiment  in  the  Lutii- 
eran  Church  and  opposed  a  strong  barrier  to  the  papal  allega- 
*  Herzog.=  X..  444.  445. 


302  THE   OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

tions.  It  undoubtedly  strengthened  the  Augsburg  Religious 
Peace  and  enlarged  the  sphere  of  its  availability.  In  these  and 
in  other  respects  the  Diet  did  good,  and  is  not  to  be  held  re- 
sponsible for  the  perverse  uses  which  the  Flacianists  made  of  it. 
The  Naumburg  Diet  did  not  endorse  the  Reformed  or  Calvinistic 
view  of  the  Sacrament.  The  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  which  it 
teaches  is  exactly  the  doctrine  of  the  Sacrament  held  and  taught 
in  the  Lutheran  Church  so  long  as  Luther  and  Melanchthon 
lived,  and  exactly  that  which  was  taught  and  held  in  nearly  all 
the  churches  of  the  Princes  who  signed  the  Preface.  It  is  be- 
tween these  extremes  that  the  true  significance  of  the  Diet  of 
Naumburg  lies.  It  placed  three  editions  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, the  one  sole  fundamental  confession  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  exactly  on  a  level,  and  it  places  these  editions  of  the 
Confession  in  chronological  order,  not  in  an  order  of  rank.  The 
Princes  distinctly  declare  that  the  later  editions  are  in  harmony 
with  the  older  edition,  which  they  call  the  Augsburg  Confession 
of  1530,  and  that  the  later  editions  are  ''explained  and  enlarged 
on  the  basis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures";  they  further  declare  that 
they  ' '  will  not  suffer  themselves  to  be  deflected  from  the  Confes- 
sion as  explained  and  again  delivered  in  the  year  1540."  By 
their  perfect  equation  of  these  three  editions  of  the  Confession 
they  exclude  all  thought  of  bias,  whether  it  be  in  favor  of  the 
Flacianists  or  of  the  Calvinists.  They  mean  to  teach  the  Luth- 
eran doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  though  their  explanation  of 
the  same  is  in  the  language  of  Melanchthon,  rather  than  in  that 
of  Luther,  though  Melanchthon 's  doctrine  was  Lutheran;  and 
no  man  to  this  day  has  shown  the  contrary.  And  that  he  changed 
Article  X.  with  the  knowledge  and  approval  of  Luther,  and  to 
guard  it  against  a  catholicizing  interpretation  has  been  estab- 
lished by  Chemnitz  and  Selneccer  in  a  way  that  admits  of  ab- 
solutely no  doubt  whatever,  and  their  testimony  and  the  proof 
they  give  have  been  unqualifiedly  accepted  by  Salig,  Avho  is  at 
the  same  time  the  most  learned  and  the  most  impartial  of  all  the 
great  historians  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.* 

But  the  evidence  shows  that  the  Princes  at  Naumburg  Avere 
not  influenced  by  any  partisan  consideration.  They  had  before 
them  a  far  more  important  problem  than  any  that  had  been 
raised  by  the  theologians.  Hoav  could  they  best  answer  the  alle- 
gation of  the  Romanists?  Had  they  decided  for  one  edition  in 
preference  to  another,  they  would  have  established  the  allega- 
*§alig,  III.,  705,  711. 


AS  SYMBOLS  FKOM  1555  TO  1580.  303 

tions  of  their  enemies.  Their  fathers  had  subscribed  the  Confes- 
sion of  1530,  had  approved  the  editions  of  1531,  and  had  / 
employed  the  editions  of  1540  and  1542  in  Diets,  and 
they  themselves  had  it  in  use  in  nearly  all  their  churches. 
Here  were  facts  that  stared  them  in  the  face.  It  was 
a  political  and  an  ecclesiastical  necessity  which  drove  them  to 
make  their  Preface  just  Avliat  it  was,  though  the  facts  show  be- 
yond question  that  their  preference  was  for  the  edition  of  1540.  • 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  true,  legalized  Confession  was  that 
which  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor  in  1530.  The  Princes  had 
to  have  a  legalized  and  a  recognized  starting  point.  That  for 
this  and  for  no  other  reason  they  name  the  earlier  form  of  the 
Confession  is  plainly  enough  declared  in  their  Preface.  But 
they  cannot  ignore  or  repudiate  those  editions  of  the  Confession 
which  at  that  time  were  in  official  use  in  their  churches  and 
schools.  These  were  the  editions  of  1540  and  1542.  ''In  conse- 
quence of  the  colloquies  held  w^ith  the  papists,  these  editions,  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Princes,  Avere  nothing  else  than  improved  and 
explained  editions  of  the  original  Confession,  which  are  to  be 
interpreted  only  in  the  right  Lutheran  sense  of  .the  first  Confes- 
sion, Avhich  had  been  legally  sanctioned  in  the  Empire,  and  from 
Avhich  they  did  not  dare  to  part  without  infracting  the  Religious 
Peace.  Had  this  not  been  the  case,  and  had  they,  through  the 
non-recognition  of  the  editions  of  1540  and  1542.  given  place  to 
the  supposition  that  these  editions  in  any  way  collided  with  the 
unaltered,  they  would  have  acknowledged  the  allegations  of  their 
opponents,  which  they  Avished  to  refute. ' '  *  And  to  this  must 
be  added  the  fact,  also  noted  by  Calinich,  that  "even  good  Luth- 
eran theologians  of  that  time,  Avith  the  sole  exception  of  the 
Flacianist  ultras,  regarded  the  editions  of  1531,  1540  and  1542 
absolutely  not  in  an  antithetical  or  in  a  one-sided  IMelanchthonian 
sense,"  that  is,  acknoAvledged  that  the  later  editions  Avere  in  har- 
mony Avith  the  earlier,  t 

*  Calinich,  ut  supra,  p.  175. 

t  In  addition  to  what  we  have  said  about  the  Variata  of  1540  on  page 
226,  "we  add  the  following  from  Salig.  whose  Lutheran  integrity  cannot  be 
impeached:  "The  tenth  Article  of  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  Of 
the  Supper,  was  so  stated  that  the  Papists  in  their  Confutation  of  1530 
allowed  it  to  pass,  because  it  could  be  interpreted  in  favor  of  transubstan- 
tiation.  When  Melanchthon  saw  that  the  Papists  endorsed  it,  he  changed  /  ^ 
this  Article  in  order  that  it  might  no  longer  bear  the  suspicion  of  transub-  i 
stantiation.  This  Altered  Confession  passed  current  in  the  Lutheran  Church, 
and  as  the  Naumburg  Princes  wrote  in  their  Preface,  was  received  in  most 
of  the  Lutheran  chiirches  and  schools.  This  ite  an  undeniable  fact,  and  if 
anybody  doubts  it,  let  him  only  read  Hesshuss'  Confession,  who  expressly 
adhered  to  the  tenth  Article  of  the  Altered  Augsburg  Confession,' although 


304  THK   OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

And  yet,  while  it  is  true,  as  said  above,  that  the  Naumbiirg 
Diet  developed  a  large  amount  of  united  sentiment  in  the  Luth- 

he  was  the  sworn  enemy  of  the  so-called  Sacramentarians,  and  was,  as  Boyle 
writes  of  Westphal,  prodigieusement  Lutherien.  Chemnitz,  who  certainly 
was  not  deficient  in  Lutheran  doctrine,  though  he  was  more  moderate  than 
the  others,  has  in  his  book,  Of  the  Holy  Supper,  openly  cited  the  tenth 
Article  of  the  Altered  Confession,  and  what  his  views  of  this  Confession 
were  has  been  already  shown.  These  are  potent  facts  which  we  neither  can 
nor  should  deny,  otherwise  we  make  a  romance  out  of  history,  or  accept  or 
reject  facts  as  it  may  suit  our  fancy  and  pleasure. ' '  Salig  says  further : 
' '  The  theologians  charged  it  as  a  great  sin  against  the  Princes  at  Naum- 
burg  that  they  wrote  of  the  Altered  Confession:  In  1540-42  it  was  repeated 
in  a  somewhat  more  stately  and  elaborate  manner,  explained  and  enlarged  on 
the  basis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  But  that  even  Brentz  and  Selneccer  found 
no  fault  with  the  Altered  Confession,  I  have  already  shown.  But  as 
Selneccer  may  have  expressed  himself  otherwise  once,  I  will  adduce  the 
judgment  of  Martin  Chemnitz — because  his  testimony  cannot  be  cast  aside, 
as  I  am  not  aware  that  his  orthodoxy  has  ever  been  impeached.  This  mod- 
erate and  orthodox  teacher  wrote  as  follows :  '  The  edition  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  published  in  1531  cannot  and  should  not  be  rejected,  for  it  is 
the  true  Augsburg  Confession  as  it  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V. 
in  1530.  This  edition  was  also  subscribed  at  Schmalkald  in  1537.  [See 
pp.  2(58  et  seqq.]  Neither  do  I  see  any  profit  or  propriety  in  rejecting  or 
condemning  the  edition  of  1540.  For  when,  in  1540,  the  Colloquy  was  held 
at  Hagenau,  and  it  was  thought  proper  to  present  a  statement  and  form  of 
the  doctrine  of  our  churches,  it  was  printed  with  a  fuller  explanation  at 
Wittenberg  vnth  reference  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  Colloquy.  This  edi- 
tion was  also  prestyited  the  same  year  at  Worms  as  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. This  edition  was  also  presented  to  the  Papists  at  the  Colloquy  in 
Eatisbon  as  the  form  of  doctrine  of  our  churches,  and  that  indeed  by  the 
advice  and  the  wish  of  Luther  and  with  his  permission  and  approbation. 
Also  our  friends  in  1546  and  afterwards  in  all  the  Diets  and  transactions 
on  religion  appealed  to  this  edition,  which  was  called  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion. .  .  .  Yet,  even  Cochlaeus  at  Worms  in  the  year  1540,  and  Piglius  in 
1541  at  Eatisbon  were  very  cognizant  of  the  fact  that  by  a  fuller  explanation 
more  light  had  been  thrown  on  several  articles.  For  they  saw  from  this 
that  the  truth  was  clearer,  and  that  the  Babylonian  Thais  was  more  clearly 
removed;  and  as  their  writings  show  thej'^  would  have  preferred  that  the 
Wittenberg  edition  of  1531  should  have  been  retained.  But  since  the  edi- 
tion of  1540  was  used  by  everybody,  the  first  edition  of  1531  was  scarcely 
known  or  has  been  seen  by  anyone;  and  since  the  edition  of  1540  has  in  it 
nothing  false  and  incorrect,  but  only  certain  necessary  explanations,  I  do 
not  at  all  see  that  it  can  be  simply  or  absolutely  rejected  and  condemned 
without  disturbing  the  churches.  Therefore  it  seems  most  fitting  that  the 
edition  of  the  year  1531  should  be  restored  to  the  churches  and  commended 
as  a  fuU  and  primary  authority.  Also  let  the  edition  of  1540  be  retained 
as  an  explanation,  which  is  not  to  conflict  with,  but  in  all  respects  is  to  be 
regarded  in  agreement  with  the  first  edition.'  [The  Latin  quoted  by  KoU- 
ner,  Symbolik,  I.,  256.] 

"It  is  astonishing  that  Chytraeus  at  TSTaumburg  should  give  Duke  Ulrich 
such  advice  as  he  did  give,  since  in  his  History  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
he  has  written  expressly  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Apology,  in  the 
copies  of  which  there  is  dissimilarity,  was  enlarged  and  improved  in  the 
life-time  of  Luther;  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  with  the  knowledge  of  Luther 
they  were  presented  to  the  Papists  bv  the  Evangelicals  at  the  colloquies  of 
Worms  and  Eatisbon."     Salig.  III.,  711,  712. 

Thus,  if  there  be  any  blame  for  the  change  of  the  Confession.  Luther  is 
as  much  to  blame  as  is  Melanchthon.  And  there  is  not  in  existence  a  single 
word,  approved  as  authentic  by  candid  historians,  which  indicates  that 
Luther  ever  expressed  a  word  of  disapproval  either  of  the  changed  Confes- 
sion or  of  JNIelanchthon.     This  mav  be  said  ab.solutelv  without  the  fear  of 


AS  SYMBOLS  FROM  1 0.j.")  to  1580.  305 

t;ran  Chiircli.  it  is  also  true  tliat  it  served  to  sliarpen  antagonisms 
already  in  existence.  It  widened  the  breach  between  the  Pala- 
tinate and  Ducal  Saxony,  and  between  Ernestine  and  the  Alber- 
tine  lines  of  the  House  of  Saxony,  that  is,  more  particularly  be- 
tween Duke  John  Frederick  and  the  Elector  Augustus.  In  a 
short  time  the  theologians  of  Tubingen,  Jena,  Bremen,  Hamburg, 
]\Iagdeburg,  Brunswick,  and  others  called  those  of  Electoral  Sax- 
ony (Leipzig  and  Wittenberg),  the  Palatinate,  Hesse,  Pomerania, 
Prussia  and  others,  Crypto-Calvinists,  and  Adiaphorists,  and 
denied  that  they  were  true  Lutherans.  Salig  says  that  some 
Lutheran  theologians  declared  that  they  would  rather  have  fel- 
lowship with  the  Catholics  than  with  the  Calvinists,  since  the 
former  held  to  the  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment, but  the  latter  enervated  and  entirely  destroyed  the  Sacra- 
ment. The  Tiibingers  and  Bremeuese  maintained  the  doctrine 
of  the  ubiquity  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  The  Hildes- 
heimers  and  others  dug  up  the  earth  on  which  a  drop  of  the  con- 
secrated wine  had  fallen.  Ilesshuss  and  iMusculus  maintained 
a  kind  of  adoration  of  the  Sacrament.  ]\Iorlin  and  others  believed 
a  bodily  presence  apart  from  participation  in  the  Sacrament. 
The  charge  of  Crypto-Calvinism  was  met  by  the  counter-charge 
of  Crypto-Catholicism — the  one  as  justifiable  as  the  other.  The 
ultras  appealed  to  the  "unaltered"  Augsburg  Confession  and 
sought  to  find  in  it  support  for  their  newly-invented  terms  about 
the  Sacrament.  The  other  side  replied:  "To  spite  us  you  now 
want  to  bring  up  again  the  tenth  Article  of  the  unaltered  Con- 
fession, although  you  know  that  INIelanehthon  changed  it  during 
the  lifetime  of  Luther,  because  the  Papists  understood  it  in  the 
sense  of  transubstantiation. "    (Salig,  III..  707.) 

Thus  the  times  were  sadly  out  of  joint  for  the  Lutheran 
Church.  The  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  had  tri- 
umphed over  their  enemies,  but  now,  like  the  Cadmean  brothers, 

contradiction.  On  the  contrary,  that  Luther  ap^jroved  it,  and  consented  to 
its  official  use  in  Diets,  must  pass  without  question.  And  there  is  not  in 
existence  a  single  word  that  justifies  the  suspicion  put  out  by  the  Flacianists 
that  Melanchthou  changed  Article  X.  to  placate  the  Sacramentarians  or  the 
Calvinists.  On  the  contrary,  at  Worms  in  1557  he  subscribed  without  hesi- 
tation the  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  and  not  only 
did  he  there  join  others  in  condemning  the  Zwinglians,  but  with  his  own 
hand  he  wrote  the  condemnations  which  were  desired  by  his  colleagues, 
Schnepf  et  al.  Kollner,  Syvibolik,  I.,  248,  note  15;  258-9,  note  4.  For 
further  information  on  the  subject,  see  Kollner,  Symbolik,  I.,  254  et  seqq., 
and  the  literature  indicated.  Also  The  Lutheran  Qxiarterly  (1888),  pp.  364- 
368,  and  the  same  for  1S98,  pp.  562  et  seqq.  Weber,  Kritische  Geschichte, 
II.,  306  et  seqq. 

20 


306  THE   OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

they  Avere  figliting  each  other.     They  separated  those  Avhom  God 
had  joined  together.    Some  made  Luther  ism  the  Avhole  of  Luth- 
eranism.    These  trekked  towards  orthodoxism,  bigotry,  symbolo- 
latry.    Some  accepted  Melanchthonism  as  the  whole  of  Lutheran- 
ism.    These  trekked  in  the  direction  of  indistinctness,  liberalism, 
inferior  appreciation  of  the  symbols.  But  Luther  and  Melanchthon 
would  have  repudiated  their  respective  followers  as  described 
above,  because  they  drew  false  conclusions  from  the  premises 
that  had  been  most  centrally  and  most  obviously  emphasized  at 
Wittenberg.    And  we  must  repudiate  them  to-day,  and  also  their 
lineal  successors,  who  seem  to  have  forgotten  that  the  Lutheran 
Church  had  a  Luther  and  a  Melanchthon.  a  ^lelanchthon  and  a 
Luther,  and  seem  not  to  knoAV  that  neither  Lutherism  nor  Mel- 
anchthonism is  the  whole  of  Lutheranism.    Lutheranism  is  Luth- 
erism. and  Melanchthonism  combined.     Luther  could  not  have 
wrought  the  C4erman  Religious  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury.   Neither  could  ^Melanchthon  have  wrought  it.    The  former 
was  the  great  religious  genius.    The  latter  was  the  learned  theo- 
logian.    Luther  Avaa  the  more  original.     Melanchthon  Avas  the 
more   logical.      Luther    quickened   and    impelled    Melanchthon. 
Melanchthon  restrained  and  moderated  Luther.    Luther  adored 
Melanchthon 's  splendid  gifts.    ]\relanchthon  adored  Luther's  ma- 
jestic spirit.  .Together  they  Avrought  in  harmony,  and  together 
they  laid  the  foundation  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church. 
IMelanchthon  Avrote  the  Augsburg  Confession.    Luther  approved 
it.    ]\Ielanchthon  changed  the  Augsburg  Confession.    Luther  ap- 
proved the  changes.  Luther  furnished  the  element  of  stability  in 
the  Lutheran  Church.     ]\Ielanchthon  provided  the  principle  of 
progress  in  the  Lutheran  Church.     "With  Luther  alone  as  fore- 
runner, the  Lutheran  Church  Avould  have  become,  and  Avould 
noAV  become,  the  orthodox  Church  of  the  West.    With  Melanch- 
thon alone  as  forerunner,  the  Lutheran  Church  Avould  have  be- 
come, and  Avould  noAv  become,  one  of  the  sects  of  the  West.    With 
Luther  and  jMelanchthon  together  as  forerunners  she  has  been, 
and  she  Avill  remain,  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  based  on 
the  Prophets  and  Apostles  and  on  Jesus  Christ,  the  true  Corner- 
stone.   Luther  Avill  furnish  the  living  spirit  for  her  theology,  and 
will  conserve  all  the  good  old.     ^Melanchthon  Avill  furnish  the 
literary  form  for  her  theologj'  and  Avill  appropriate  all  the  good 
new  that  is  furnished  by  science  and  experience.   This  Avill  make 
the  Lutheran  Church  both  conservative  and  progressive.    And 
without  being  both,  she  cannot  hold  a  high  place  and  exert  a 


AS  SYMBOLS  FROM  1555  TO  1580.  307 

wide  influence  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  of  Christ,  of  which 
she  rightly  confesses  herself  a  member. 

It  was  the  disregard  of  this  principle — it  was  the  separation  of 
Luther  and  Melanchthon,  the  building  upon  one  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  other,  or  rather,  upon  the  accidental  or  incidental  subor- 
dinate propositions  of  the  one  or  of  the  other — it  was  the  partial 
and  defective  appropriation  of  Lutheranism,  joined  with  the 
political  rivalries  and  personal  animosities  of  the  Princes,  that 
brought  to  the  second  generation  of  adherents  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  strifes  as  bitter,  and  antagonisms  as  noxious,  as 
were  those  that  fell  upon  the  Church  in  the  fourth  and  fifth 
centuries  of  her  history.  The  Diet  of  Naumburg  stood  for  Luth- 
eran union,  for  Luther  and  Melanchthon.  In  part  it  effected 
\inion.  But  it  was  made  the  occasion  by  the  Flacianists  to  in- 
tensify and  perpetuate  their  one-sided  and  unhistorical  emphasis 
of  the  Confessions.  Hence  it  is  from  this  time  that  the  Confes- 
sions emerge  more  and  more  into  prominence  as  symhols*  and 
soon  we  have  the  distinction  of  "unaltered"  and  altered  Augs- 
burg Confession — the  word  "unaltered"  standing  in  the  concep- 
tions of  that  day  for  the  Confession  as  it  had  been  delivered  to 
the  Emperor  Charles  V.,  June  25,  1530,  and  the  word  altered 
standing  for  the  Latin  edition  of  1540,  as  we  have  shown  on  page 
232,  though  the  word  "unaltered"  can  be  scarcely  regarded  as 
a  ivatchivord  prior  to  the  year  1576. 

3.     The  Church  Orders. 

The  Jena  Consistorial  Order  of  1569  declares  that  "no  person 
shall  be  a  member  of  the  Consistory  who  will  not  openly  and 
distinctly  confess  himself  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  to  the  three  ancient  creeds,  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  Apology,  and  likewise  to  the  Schmalkald  Ar- 
ticles, "f 

The  8y nodical  Statutes  of  Poraerania  (1574)  required  "all 
pastors  and  ministers  to  consent  and  agree  in  a  sincere  consensus 
of  the  heavenly  doctrine  according  to  the  Prophetical  and  Apos- 
tolical Scriptures,  the  Symbols,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  its 
Apolog;s'.  and  the  Catechisms  of  Luther. ' '  t 

The  Lilnehxirg  Order  (1575)  requires  that  the  candidate  for 
the  ministry  "shall  make  his  confession  in  harmony  with  the 

*Gieseler,   Church   History,   IV.,   399,   400,    note   32.     Dr.    Karl   Miiller, 

Freussiche  Jahrhucher,  February,  1889,  p.  125. 
t  Eichter,  Kirchenordnungen,  II.,  325. 
%  Riehter.  ut  supra,  II.,  386. 


308  THE   OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS 

Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Sehinalkald  Articles,  the 
Catechisms  of  Luther  and  the  Anti-Interim  Confession  of  the 
cities  of  Hamburg,  Liibeck,  Liineburg. ' '  * 

In  the  Hohenlohe  Corp.us  Doctrinae  (1577)  we  read  as  follows: 
* '  The  writings  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  as  the  sole  norma  judicii:  the  three  ancient  Symbols, 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles, 
Luther's  Catechisms,  the  Repetition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
Melanchthon 's  Loci  and  the  present  Church  order.  Other  writ- 
ings of  the  Church  teachers  shall  be  understood  and  explained 
according  to  this  Corpus  Doctrinae.  The  controversial  and  im- 
pure books  of  the  Papists,  Calvinists  et  al.  shall  not  be  used, 
and  controversial  matters  about  religion  shall  not  be  brought  to 
the  pulpit. ' '  t 

These  are  all,  or  at  least  nearly  all,  of  the  more  rigid  and  com- 
prehensive forms  of  confessional  subscription  as  introduced  and 
employed  between  the  Naumburg  Diet  and  the  introduction  of 
the  Book  of  Concord  (1580).  Taken  as  they  read,  they,  with  the 
one  exception,  seem  to  place  the  Confessions  on  a  level  with  the 
Holy  ScriptLires.  If  this  was  their  meaning  and  intent,  then 
they  were  at  variance  with  that  fundamental  principle  of  the 
Reformation  which  made  the  Word  of  God  the  sole  norma  judicii. 
At  least,  in  those  formulas  and  requirements  we  find  the  begin- 
nings of  the  exaltation  of  the  Confessions,  and  we  begin  to  miss 
that  lofty  and  almost  exclusive  regard  for  the  Holy  Scriptures 
which  is  so  manifest  in  the  earlier  Orders,  and  especially  in  the 
writings  of  Luther  and  ]\Ielauclithon.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  in 
some  places  a  new  generation  has  arisen.  This  certainly  is  clear : 
In  this  second  quarter-century  of  Lutheran  history  the  Lutheran 
Confessions  have,  in  many  places,  acquired  an  authorit.v  which 
their  authors  and  earlier  subscribers  did  not  intend  that  they 
should  have,  and  which  they  did  not  have  from  1530  to  1555.  At 
first,  the  Confessions  were  intended  to  be  apologetic  defenses  of 
the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Lutherans  at  that  particular 
time.  Now  they  are  beginning  to  be  made  normae  judicii  for 
testing  other  writings  and  for  guaranteeing  soundness  in  the 
faith.  Though  still  in  by  far  the  larger  number  of  the 
Orders  in  use  in  this  period,  the  Confessions  are  not  even 
named.  In  some  there  are  instructions,  and  in  some  mild  forms 
of  subscription.  In  the  Waldeck  Order  the  pastors  are  to  teach, 
hold  and  believe  as  God  has  revealed  himself  in  the  Scriptures, 
*  Riehter,  ut  supra,  39S.  t  Riehter,  lit  supra.  II.,  400. 


AS  SYMBOLS  FROM  1555  TO  1580.  309 

as  set  forth  in  the  three  Symbols,  in  the  Catechism  and  Confes- 
sion of  Luther,  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  the  Apology.* 
In  the  Wiirtemberg  Order  of  1559  the  minister  is  to  be  examined 
on  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith  according  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Wiirtemberg  Confes- 
sion.! In  the  Brandenburg  Order,  1573,,  the  minister  is  required 
in  all  his  official  acts  to  abide  by  the  content  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  the  Church  Order. J  Sometimes  the  Loci  of  Mel- 
anchthon,  and  sometimes  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  are  named,  as 
in  the  Zweibriicken  Order  of  1557,  and  in  the  Lippe  Order  of 
1571.  But  there  is  nothing  like  a,  uniform  practice,  and  the 
methods  of  reference  to  the  Confessions  are  different.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  change  of  the  Confessions  from  witnesses  to  sym- 
bols was  gradual.  The  process  has  been  thus  described  by  Koll- 
ner,  whom  the  elder  Philippi  calls  an  impartial  judge : 

"As  regards  the  authority  to  be  assigned  to  the  Sj^mbols  in  the 
Lutheran  Church,  there  has  always  been,  and  still  is,  a  difference 
of  opinion.  It  was  a  fundamental  principle  of  this  Church  not 
to  allow  itself  to  be  bound  by  any  word  or  writing  of  man ;  and 
yet  this  Church  was  the  first  to  depart  from  that  principle.  In  an 
historical  examination  of  the  authority  that  has  attended  the 
Symbols,  a  distinction  must  be  made  between  the  moral  estima- 
tion of  an  individual,  or  even  of  a  great  many,  and  the  public 
authority  in  so  far  as  this  was  expressed  by  subscription  to  the 
Sj'mbols  for  faith  and  doctrine.  The  moral  estimation  in  Avhich 
the  Symbols,  especially  the  Augsburg  Confession,  were  held 
from  the  beginning  was  very  high.  At  first  the  authority  was 
based  chiefly  on  the  opposition  from  without — the  Symbols  Avere 
only  the  expression  of  Avhat  was  believed — but  as  has  always  been 
the  case,  very  soon  stress  was  laid  on  their  doctrinal  system  as 
a  norm  of  faith  within.  The  Symbols  became  the  norm  of  what 
must  now  be  believed.  When  and  how  this  was  first  done  by 
public  authority  is  a  matter  very  difficult  to  determine.  Traces 
and  indications  of  it  are  often  deceptive,  because  cases  in  Avhicli 
subscription  was  only  requested  and  given  voluntarily,  may  easily 
be  quoted  as  cases  in  which  subscription  was  commanded.  But 
the  truth  appears  to  be  about  as  follows :  Long  before  the  cx)mpo- 
sition  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  so  much  authority  was  laid  on 
the  individual  symbols  that  they  were  recommended  as  a  norm 

*  Eichter,  ut  supra,  II.,  169. 
t  Eichter,  ut  supra,  II.,  199. 
i  Eichter,  ut  supra,   II.,  361. 


310  THE   OLD    LUTHERAN    CONFESSIONS. 

of  faith  and  doctrine,  and  here  and  there  conmianded.  How- 
ever, this  does  not  appear  to  have  occurred  everj^vhere  at  the 
same  time  and  in  the  same  manner.  In  general,  prior  to  the 
composition  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  or  prior  to  the  contro- 
versies which  arose  in  consequence  of  its  formation,  the  principle 
of  binding  the  Symbols  does  not  seem  to  have  been  universally 
present. 

"But  it  was  different  at  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  and  by  and  through  its  formation.  Already 
before  this  there  were  instances  of  hard  coercion  of  faith  and 
enforced  reception  of  the  Symbols  as  norms  of  faith  and  doctrine, 
but  afterwards  more.  The  authority  of  the  Symbols  gradually 
rose  so  high,  that  not  only  did  the  rulers  make  the  reception  of 
them,  in  the  sense  mentioned  above,  an  indispensable  condition 
for  every  service  in  the  Church,  and  regarded  with  disfavor  those 
who  resisted,  but  even  the  theologians  themselves  reverenced  and 
defended  them  as  haying  like  authoritj^  with  the  Scriptures.  But 
there  were  not  wanting  those  who  opposed  such  abridgment  of 
evangelical  freedom,  and  regarded  the  definitions  of  the  Symbols 
as  oppressive,  and  really  (though  often  out  of  dogmatic  interest) 
made  good  the  principle  of  the  Evangelical  Church  that  the 
Scriptures  are  the  rule  of  faith  and  life.  Thus  at  once  after  the 
formation  and  introduction  of  the  Book  of  Concord  opposition  in 
the  sense  named  arose.  Yet  the  authority  of  the  Symbols  easily 
gained  the  victory,  and  there  entered  the  Evangelical  Church  a 
period  of  their  unqualified  dominion,  and  with  it  a  period  of 
almost  complete  scholastic  torpidity.  But  as  this  was  a  result 
of  narrowing  and  circumscribing  all  theological  effort  by  the  dead 
letter  of  the  Symbol,  which  permitted  only  a  scholastic  perfec- 
tioning  within  the  sharply  defined  system,  this  torpidity  bore  in 
itself  the  seed  of  a  new  opposition  to  the  Symbols.  At  the  be- 
ginning of  the  eighteenth  century,  Spener  and  those  of  like  mind 
were  saddened  in  view  of  that  scholasticism,  and  in  view  of  the 
lack  of  true,  elevating  nourishment  for  a  Christian  spirit  to  be 
drawn  from  the  theology  of  that  time;  and  with  the  desire  of 
freeing  from  its  chains  the  spirit  of  theology  that  had  been  par- 
alyzed by  the  letter  of  the  Symbol,  and  with  a  desire  of  making 
it  fruitful  for  heart  and  life,  they  were  the  first  to  set  themselves 
.against  the  excessive  authority  of  the  Symbols.  After  a  violent 
controversy,  ever\'thing  in  Germany  on  the  field  of  theolog}' 
gradually  returned  to  the  earlier  condition."* 
*  Symholil-,  T..  106-lOS.     See  also   the   very   instnictive   notes,   pp.   108-113. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  CONTROVERSIES  WITHIN  THE  LUTHERAX  CHURCH  :  IN  GENERAL, 

John  Nicholas  Anton,  author  of  a  history  of  the  Form  of 
Concord,  declares:  "It  is  certain  beyond  question  that  with 
Luther's  death  all  concord,  imity  and  harmony  among  those  who 
were  pledged  to  his  doctrine,  ceased  and  vanished  from  the  earth. 
Luther  himself,  with  his  clear  insight,  had  long  foreseen  this. 
From  various  circumstances  and  occurrences  he  concluded  that 
under  the  ashes  a  fire  was  slumbering  which  would  soon  burst 
into  flames  and  take  a  wide  sweep."*  John  Aurifaber  reports 
in.  his  Preface  to  Luther's  Table  Talk,  that  Luther  had  often 
prophesied  that  after  his  death  his  doctrine  would  fall  away 
because  of  false  brethren,  fanatics  and  sectarians,  and  that  the 
doctrine,  which  in  1530  had  stood  on  the  heights  at  Augsburg, 
would  descend  into  the  valley,  since  the  Word  of  God  had  sel- 
dom flourished  more  than  forty  years  in  one  place. 

All  who  are  acquainted  with  the  history  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  the  sixteenth  century  know  how  completely  these  pre- 
visions and  prophesies  of  Luther  were  fulfilled:  and  likewise  do 
such  know  that  the  beginnings  of  the  controversies  and  distrac- 
tions that  broke  out  after  Luther's  death  lay  far  back  of  that 
event.  In  reality  there  had  not  been  perfect  harmony  in  the 
Lutheran  party  since  the  publication  of  the  Visitation  Articles 
in  1527-8,  and  especially  not  since  the  contention  over  Private 
Confession  and  Private  Absolution  at  »Niirnberg  in  1530-1533. 
Even  at  Schmalkald  ]Melanchthon  had  expressed  a  private 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope. 

]\Ioreover,  the  age  was  one  of  extreme  agitation.  The  Reforma- 
tion in  Germany  had  stirred  the  souls  of  thinking  men  to  their 
lowest  depths,  and  had  brought  to  the  surface  the  polemical 
qualities  that  had  distinguished,  first,  their  heathen  and  then, 
scarcely  less,  their  semi-civilized  and  semi-Christian  German 
ancestors.  The  fathers  had  fought  with  the  sword.  The  sons 
now  fight  with  weapons  which  are  sharper  and  mightier  than 
the  sword — with  the  pen  and  the  voice.  The  scene  of  conflict  is 
changed  from  the  open  field  to  the  study,  to  the  chair,  to  the 
*  Geschiehte,  pp.  4,  5. 

(311) 


312  THE    CONTROVEKSIES    WITHIN    THE 

pulpit.  A  chief  fimetion  of  the  theologian  now  is  to  discover 
and  to  combat  heresies.  Small  differences  in  teaching,  and  often 
even  in  the  statement  of  a  doctrinal  article,  were  first  detected 
and  then  magnified,  and  then  attacked  with  violence  and  viru- 
lence, as  though  the  standing  or  falling  of  the  Church  depended 
upon  the  annihilation  of  the  opposing  view.  It  was  a  character- 
istic of  the  age — an  age  which  had  not  yet  been  much  refined 
and  humanized  by  the  Classics  and  the  Beaux-Arts. 

Then,  too,  the  Lutheran  Churches  and  the  theologians  were 
under  the  patronage  of  the  State,  and  had  to  suffer  the  evil  con- 
sequences of  the  rivalries,  the  jealousies,  the  feuds,  the  alliances, 
the  whims  and  assumptions  of  the  Princes,  who,  as  a  rule,  cared 
more  for  their  political  aggrandizement  than  they  did  for  the 
interests  of  the  Church.  Indeed,  all  things,  considered,  the  times 
and  the  conditions  were  totally  unfavorable  for  peace  and  con- 
cord in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Germany.  But  so  long  as  Luther 
lived  his  commanding  personality  checked  all  tendencies  to- 
wards distractions  and  divisions.  He  had  mediated  between  Mel- 
anchthon  and  Agricola  in  the  Antinomian  Controversy  at  the 
beginning  (1527),  and  when  Agricola  renewed  the  controversy, 
ten  years  later,  Luther  put  an  end  to  it  by  his  six  masterly  dis- 
putations against  the  Antinomians.*  In  the  case  of  the  Niirn- 
berg  dispute  he  sided  Avith  neither  party,  but  declared  that 
Private  Absolution  is  comforting,  but  not  necessary,  since  not 
enjoined  by  God's  Word.  He  also  declared  that  the  general 
absolution  is  efficacious,  and  that  both  private  and  general  absolu- 
tion are  alike  conditioned  in  their  efficacy  by  the  faith  of  the 
recipient.!  He  knew  of  and  approved  the  changes  made  by 
IMelanchthon  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  He  also  laiew  Mel- 
anchthon's  teaching  on  J^ree-will  as  the  same  was  presented  in 
the  Loci  Communes  in  1535;  and  when  this  form  of  1535  had 
passed  through  nine  Latin  and  seven  German  editions  he  com- 
mended it  to  the  AVittenberg  students  to  be  "read  next  to  the 
Bible";  and  when  ]\Ielanchthon  had  still  further  changed  the 
Loci  in  1543,  Luther,  in  the  Preface  to  his  Latin  AVorks,  written 
]\Iareh  5,  1545,  crowns  it  as  superior  to  all  works  on  systematic 
theology. i:  And  to  the  day  of  his  death,  February  18,  1546, 
Luther    defended    JMelanchthon    from    the    attacks    of    narrow- 

'*  Erlangen  edition  (Latin),  IV.,  424  et  seqq. 

t  Kostlin-Kaweraii,  II.,  277-8. 

t  See  Matthesiiis,  Life  of  Luther.  Twelfth  Sei-nion,  and  Preface  to  Jena 
Edition  of  Luther 's  Works.  Credner  's  Erorterungen  Eirchlicher  Zeitfragen, 
pp.  106-110. 


LUTHERAN    CHURCH  :    IN    GENERAL.  .  313 

minded  and  jealous  opponents,  and  lived  in  loving  and  grateful 
appreciation  of  ]\Ielanehthon  's  splendid  talents  and  distinguished 
services  to  the  cause  of  the  Gospel. 

But  no  sooner  had  Luther  departed  from  the  world  than  dis- 
cord and  strife  began  to  do  their  distracting  work.  Turbulent 
spirits  like  Osiander  (1498-1552)  and  Amsdorf  (1483-1565)  and 
Agricola  (1492-1566),  and  a  few  others,  piqued  and  disappointed, 
and  harassed  by  events,  could  not  endure  IMelanchthon's  leader- 
ship at  the  Lutheran  ^Metropolis.  They  harked  back  to  Luther. 
Over  against  these  stood  the  pupils  of  ]\Ielanchthon,  who  w^ere 
filled  with  the  irenical  spirit  of  "the  dear  Master,"  and  went, 
some  of  them,  far  beyond  him  in  magnifying  the  common  posses- 
sion of  Lutherans,  Calvinists  and  Catholics  in  the  interest  of 
ecclesiastical  union.  Such  conduct  naturally  excited  opposition 
from  those  who  disliked  iMelanchthon,  and  had  suffered  from 
the  casualties  of  the  times.  Hence  Kurtz,  in  discussing  the  two 
parties  and  the  t\To  tendencies  that  arose  after  Luther's  death, 
says :  ' '  The  personal  friends,  scholars  and  adherents  of  Luther, 
on  the  contrary,  for  the  most  part  more  Lutheran  than  Luther 
himself,  emulating  the  rugged  decision  of  their  great  leader, 
and  carrying  it  out  in  a  one-sided  manner,  were  anxious  rather 
to  emphasize  and  widen,  as  far  as  possible,  the  gulf  that  lay 
between  them  and  their  opponents.  Reformed  and  Catholic  alike, 
and  to  make  any  reconciliation  and  union  by  way  of  compromise 
impossible. ' '  * 

Occasions  and  just  grounds  of  controversy  were  not  long  in 
waiting.  Soon  a  theological  war  broke  out  and  spread  over  all 
Germany,  but  the  chief  battle-fields  were  the  two  Saxonies,  Elec- 
toral under  the  Albertine  and  Ducal  under  the  Ernestine  line. 
Many  were  the  questions  of  dispute  and  varied  was  the  order 
of  battle.  Sometimes  the  chief  disputants  joined  forces  against  a 
common  enemy,  and  sometimes  they  turned  their  arms  against 
each  other  in  the  deadliest  hostility.  But  as  the  questions  in  dis- 
pute can  be  reduced  to  three  chief  points,  so  can  the  disputants 
be  reduced  to  two  chief  parties.  The  chief  points  in  dispute 
have  to  do  mainly  with  the  fundamentals  of  Anthropology, 
Christology  and  Soteriology;  and  the  chief  disputants  may  be 
aligned  as  Flacianists  and  Philippists.  But  before  we  can  dis- 
cuss these  subjects  further  we  must  exhibit  what  were  in  part 
the  expressions  and  in  part  the  causes  of  the  Controversies  ivithin 
the  Lutheran  Church,  viz.: 

*  Church  History,  Eng.  Trans.,  p.  350, 


314  THE    CONTROVERSIES    WITHIN    THE' 

1.     The  Corpora  DoctriKce. 

No  confessional  history  of  the  Lutheran  Church  would  be  com- 
plete did  it  not  contain  an  account  of  the  different  corpora 
doctrince  which  appeared  in  the  different  territorial  Lutheran 
churches  during  the  sixties  and  seventies  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. These  were  collections  of  doctrinal  treatises  introduced 
into  different  territorial  churches  at  different  times  for  the  pur- 
pose of  regulating  the  preaching  and  the  theological  teaching, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  setting  bounds  to  the  vagaries  of  the 
theologians.  These  corpora  doctrince  all  witness  to  the  Lutheran 
faith  of  the  Princes  and  of  the  churches  that  introduced  them, 
but  by  no  means  in  a  uniform  way.  They  indeed  show  a  dis- 
tracted rather  than  a  unified  Lutheran  Church.  They  are  them- 
selves expressions  of  the  distractions  then  existing  in  the  Luth- 
eran Church.  At  the  same  time  they  show  a  disposition  to  set 
forth  a  large  number  of  doctrinal  treatises  as  normative  for  the 
faith  and  the  doctrine  of  each '  particular  territorial  Church ; 
and  just  as  distinctly  do  they  show  the  presence  "of  the  party 
spirit,  which  in  many  places  had  changed  Lutheranism  into 
Lutherism  and  MelancMJionism ,  that  is,  had  created  one  party 
who  took  "holy  Luther"  and  his  words  as  normative,  and  an- 
other party  who  took  "the  dear  ]\laster"  and  his  words  as  norm- 
ative. That  each  party  made  a  perverse  use  of  its  authority  in 
many  instances,  and  drew  false  conclusions  from  premises,  can- 
not be  successfully  denied.  The  Flacianists,  the  Jena  School, 
represented  the  extreme  of  Lutherism.  The  Philippists,  as  they 
were  nicknamed  by  their  opponents,  in  some  cases  did  violence 
to  Melanchthonism.  Of  the  preservation  of  the  harmony  that 
had  existed  between  Luther  and  Melanchthon  they  did  not  dream. 
But  no  wonder!  That  was  not  an  age  of  harmonizing,  but  an 
age  of  fighting.  The  Flacianists,  following  the  example  of 
Luther,  fought  aggressively.  The  Philippists  fought  in  the 
main  defensively,  but  some  of  them  unduly  magnified,  and 
perverted,  the  IMelanehthonian  type  of  teaching. 

But  now  to  the  Corpora  Doctrines  as  illustrations  of  this  pref- 
ace. 

1.  Corpus  Doctrince  Christianae.  That  is,  a  complete  sum- 
mary of  the  correct,  true  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Gospel  accord- 
ing to  the  divine,  prophetic,  and  apostolic  Scriptures,  very  cor- 
rectly, devoutly  and  Christianly  brought  together  into  a  few 
hooks  by  the  Venerable  Master  Philip  Melanchthon.  Folio.  1560. 

This  book  was  a  private  enterprise.    It  was  arranged  by  the 


LUTHERAN  CHURCH  :  IN  GENERAL.  315 

publisher  and  by  Caspar  Peucer,  Melanchthon 's  son-in-law.*  It 
was  published  at  Leipzig  by  the  learned  printer,  Magister  Ern- 
est Vogelin,  with  a  preface  by  Melanchthon,  dated  September 
29,  1559.  Because  it  contains,  besides  the  Ecumenical  Creeds, 
only  treatises  by  Melanchthon,  it  is  usually  called  Corpus  Philip- 
picum,  and  after  it  was  made  normative  for  doctrine  in  Electoral 
Saxony  in  1567,  it  has  been  frequently  called  Corpus  Misnicum, 
in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  the  Corpus  Thuringicum.  By  rea- 
son of  the  great  authority  of  I\Ielanchthon  it  was  made  a  norm 
for  teaching  in  Hesse  and  in  Pomerania  already  in  1561. 
It  is  composed  of  the  following  treatises : 

1.  The  Three  Ecumenical  Creeds. 

2.  The  Augsburg  Confession  according  to  the  edition  of 
1533. 

3.  The  Apology  of  this  Confession. 

4.  The  Repetition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  that  is,  the 
Confessio  Saxonica. 

5.  The  Chief  Articles  of  Christian  Doctrine  in  Latin  called 
Loci  Theologici. 

6.  The  Exameri  Ordinandorum. 

7.  Refutation  of  the  Idolatrous  Articles  set  up  by  the  Jesuits 
in  Bavaria. 

8.  Against  the  Renewal  of  the  Error  of  Servetus. 

In  the  same  year,  1560,  this  Corpus  was  published  in  folio  ia 
Latin,  also  by  Yogeliuf  with  a  preface  by  Melanchthon,  dated, 
February  16,  1560.  The  Latin  edition  contains  exactly  the  parts 
found  in  the  German  edition,  with  the  addition,  at  the  end,  of 
The  Response  concerning  the  Controversies  of  Stancar.  The 
Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Apology  appear  in  the  edition  of 
1542,  and,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of  the  times,  the  Con- 
fession is  declared  to  be  that-  Confession  delivered  to  the  Em- 
peror Charles  V.  at  Augsburg,  anno  M.  D.  XXX.,  and  is  intro- 
duced with  the  Preface  that  introduces  all  the  Latin  editions  of 
the  Confession. 

Melanchthon 's  prefaces  to  the  Corpus,  German  and  Latin, 
throw  much  light  on  the  genesis  of  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
They  should  be  read  together,  as  each  assists  in  understanding 
the  other. 

According  to  Feuerlin-Riederer,  the  Corpus  passed  through 
thirteen  editions,  seven  Latin  and  six  German.  In  the  second 
and  subsequent  Latin  editions  the  Augsburg  Confession  accord- 
*  Hutter,  Cap.  XI..  f.  94.    Buddeus,  Isagoge,  p.  493. 


316  THE   CONTROVERSIES    WITHIN    THE 

ing  to  the  oc-tavo  edition  of  1531.  a  little  varied,  was  added  to  that 
of  1542,  article  by  article.  The  last  Latin  edition  was  published 
at  Strassbnrg  in  1580,  and  the  last  German  edition  at  Zerbst 
in  1588.* 

It  Avas  according  to  the  second  and  subsequent  editions,  not  ac- 
cording to  the  first  edition,  that  this  Latin  Corpus  was  author- 
ized by  the  Saxon  Estates. 

2.  The  Corpus  Pomeranicum.  The  title  Corpus  Doctrines 
Christianae,  in  which  the  true  Christian  doctrine  is  correctly 
and  purely  embraced  according  t(5  the  Content  of  the  Holy 
Prophetical  and  Apostolical  Scriptures,  etc.  This  Corpus  Avas 
adopted  at  a  Synod  held  in  Stettin,  March  6,  1561.  It  contains 
the  same  parts  that  are  embraced  in  the  Corpus  Doctrincc  Philip- 
picum,  but  in  the  lower  Saxon  dialect.  To  this  collection  of 
Melanchthon 's  Avritiugs  was  added  in -1564  a  collection  from 
the  writings  of  Luther  consisting  of  the  two  Catechisms,  the 
Schmalkald  Articles,  several  Opinions  Avritten  by  Luther,  and 
Luther's  Confession,  first  published  in  1529  (AYorks  Erl.  Ed.  30: 
363  et  seqq.).  The  two  collections  were  published  at  Wittenberg 
in  1565  under  the  title:  Corpus  Doctrince  Christianae,  in  wliich 
the  true  doctrine,  etc.  This  Corpus  was  made  symbolical  for  all 
the  churches  in  Pomerania.  In  the  years  1573  and  1593  each, 
it  received  an  addition,  chiefly  from  the  writings  of  Luther,  and 
also  (1593)  the  Pomeranian  Confession,  drawn  largely  from  the 
Formula  of  Concord.f  Salig  says  that  '-the  Pomeranian  Church 
composed  its  Corpus  Doctrince  in  the  main  according  to  the 
Philippicum,  for  the  reason  that  it  had  subscribed  the  Repetition 
of  the  Saxon  Confession  intended  for  the  Council  of  Trent,  and 
because  the  Dukes  of  Pomerania  had  taken  part  in  the  Diet  of 
Naumburg. ' '  J 

3.  The  Corpus  of  the  City  of  Brunswick.  This  has  been  desig- 
nated as  the  first  specifically  Lutheran  Confessional  Book  to 
bear  the  name  Corpus  Doctrince.  In  addition  to  the  Preface, 
dated  October  30,  1563,  it  contains  the  following  parts :  The 
Brunswick  Church  Order  of  1528  (composed  by  Bugenhagen  in 
Plattdeutsch)  translated  into  high  German  in  1531;  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  ("according  to  the  form  in  which  it  Avas  deliv- 

*  For  additional,  and  perhaps  more  accurate,  information  about  the  dif- 
ferent editions  of  this  Corpus  than  one  finds  in  the  Feuerlin-Eiederer,  see 
Eealencyclopadie,'  IV.,  p.  294. 

t  Baumgarten,  Erleuierungen,  p.  259  ct  seqq. 

?Vol.  III.,  704. 


LUTHERAN    CHURCH  :    IN   GKNERAL.  ol7 

erecl  to  the  Roman  Emperor  in  the  year  1530  at  Augsburg";  ; 
the  Apology;  the  Schmalkald  Articles  (with  Preface  by  Stoltz, 
1554)  ;  the  Liineburg  Articles,  which  had  been  subscribed  by 
deputies  of  the  Lower  Saxon  Cities  at  Liineburg,  August  27, 
1561.  In  the  Confession  of  the  City  of  Brunswick,  1570,  this 
collection  of  symobolical  writings  was  again  ratified  as  the 
Corpus  Doctrince  of  Brunswick.* 

4.  Corpus  Pruienticum,  1567.  It  bore  the  title:  Repetition 
of  the  Body  of  Church  Doctrine,  or  Repetition  of  the  Sum  and 
Substance  of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Christian  Church, 
as  the  same  is,  according  to  God's  Word,  embraced  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  Apology  and  in  the  Schmalkald 
Articles.  The  Repetition  was  composed  by  Morlin  and  Chenmitz, 
both  of  whom  had  been  called  from  Brunswick  to  Konigsberg  for 
that  purpose.  It  consists  of  a  discussion  of  the  chief  articles  of 
the  Christian  faith  in  forty-one  and  a  half  folia.  May  28,  1567, 
it  was  subscribed  by  86  theologians  assembled  at  Konigsberg. 
George  Yenediger,  Bishop  of  Pomerania,  heads  the  list  and  is 
followed  immediately  by  Morlin  and  Chemnitz. 

The  entire  Corpus  is  introduced  by  the  Preface,  in  which  Mar- 
grave Albert  of  Brandenburg  commands  his  preachers  and 
teachers  to  accept  it  and  to  hold  it,  and  to  abide  by  it,  "and 
not  in  the  least  to  oppose  it  either  in  words  or  in  works. ' '  Dated, 
Konigsberg,  June  9th,  in  the  year  1567.  The  text  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  agrees  with  that  which  had  been  taken  into  the 
Brunswick  Church  Order ;  f  that  of  the  Apology  is  the  transla- 
tion of  Justus  Jonas.  The  order:  The  Augsburg  Confession, 
the  Apology  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  was  followed  in  the 
Book  of  Concord,  1580.$ 

5.  Corpus  Thuringicuni.  The  title  is:  Corpus  Doctrince 
Christianae,  that  is,  a  summary  of  Christian  Doctrine  composed 
from  the  Writings  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  by  Dr  JMartiii 
Luther  especially,  and  by  other  teachers  of  this  land  as  the 
same  ...  is  unanimouslj^  confessed  and  taught.  Printed 
at  Jena  by  Christian  Rhodinger's  heirs.  1570,  folio. 

This  Corpus  embraces  the  three  Ecumenical  Creeds,  Luther's 
Catechisms,   the   Augsburg   Confession,   Wittenberg   edition   of 

*  Bealencyclopcidie,^  IV..  p.  29-5.  Eehtmeyer's  Braunschweig  Kirclien^ 
Historie,  III.,  245  et  seqq.,  especiallr  pp.  253-4.  Baumgarten,  ut  supra, 
265  et  seqq. 

t  Salig,  I.,  705. 

t  For  a  lengthy  account  of  this  Corpus  see  Hartknoeh.  Preussische  Kir- 
cJien-Historie,  pp.  423  et  seqq. 


318  THE    CONTROVERSIES    WITHIN    THE 

1531.  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  the  Thuriiigian 
Confession  of  1549,  delivered  on  account  of  the  Interims,  the 
Confutations  of  1559  (see  p,  300),  and  a  short  admonition  to 
Confession.  The  same  Corpus  was  printed  in  Latin  at  Jena  in 
1571.  Here  the  Confession  is  given  according  to  Melanchthon 's 
octavo  edition  of  1531.  The  authors  of  this  Corpus  were  the 
theologians  of  Ducal  Saxony,  Avho  sent  it  forth  in  opposition  to 
the  Corpus  FhUippicum,  which,  at  the  Altenburg  Colloquy, 
1568-9,  had  been  a  subject  of  dispute. 

6.  Corpus  Brandenhurgicum,  which  appeared  at  Frankfort- 
on-the-Oder  in  1572,  in  folio.  The  general  title  runs  thus :  The 
Augsburg  Confession  from  the  Genuine  Original  wliich  was 
delivereel  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg, 
anno  1530.  The  Small  Catechism.  An  Explanation  and  Short 
Extract  from  the  Postils  and  doctrinal  treatises  of  the  Dear  Man 
of  God,  Dr.  Luther,  from  which  it  can  be  seen  how  the  same 
taught  in  regard  to  the  Chief  Articles  of  our  Christian  Religion. 
The  Augsburg  Confession  is  given  according  to  the  copy  brought 
by  Coelestin  in  1566  from  Mayence,  and  which  for  a  long  time 
passed  as  and  was  called  the  "unaltered."  But  subsequent  in- 
vestigations have  shoA^Ti  that  it  was  made  from  ^n  early  unsigned 
manuscript,  and  consequently  that  it  has  no  authentic  value. 
The  German  text  in  the  Book  of  Concord  was  made  from  the 
same  manuscript,  and  is  there  exhibited  as  "that  first  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession,"  a  mistake  that  has  brought  much  con- 
fusion and  bitter  controversy  into  the  Lutheran  Church.* 

This  Corpus,  together  with  the  Agende  attached  to  it,  was 
made  normative  in  the  churches  of  t]ie  Electorate.  The  collec- 
tion contained  also  Explanations  of  the  Confession  and  of  the 
Small  Catechism,  taken  from  the  Avritings  of  Luther.f 

7.  Corpus  Wilhelminum,  that  is,  the  Sum,  Form  and  Type 
of  the  pure  Christian  Doctrine :  The  three  Chief  Symbols,  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  octavo,  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald 
Articles,  Luther's  two  Catechisms.  The  form  of  doctrine,  which 
has  hitherto  prevailed  in  the  churches  and  schools  of  the  Duchy 
of  Liineburg,  shall  in  the  future  not  be  changed.  The  Corpus 
included  the  Tractate  of  LTrban  Regius  on  the  chief  loci  of  the 
Christian  Doctrine,  and  another  containing  a  number  of  brief 
sections  on  the  principal  doctrines,  composed  by  Martin 
Chemnitz.     This  Corpus  does  not  differ  materially  from  that 

*  See  Weber's  Kritisehe  Geschichte,  I.,  233  et  seqq.:  II.,  119  et  segq. 
t  Weber,  iit  supra,  II.,  121. 


LUTHERAN  CHURCH  :  IN  GENERAL.  3l9 

composed  by  Chemnitz  as  chief  author,  in  the  year  1569,  and 
is  ahnost  identical  with  the  Corpus  Juliurn,  which  was  sent  forth 
for  Brnnswick-AYolfenbiittel,  in  the  year  1576,  printed  at 
Heinrichstadt,  folio.*  This  Corpus  is  still  subscribed  by  the 
clergy  of  Brunswick. 

8.  The  Xiirnherg  yormal  Book,  prepared  in  1573  for  the 
churches  in  Brandenburg,  Ansbach  and  Niirnberg.  It  was  an 
enlargement  of  the  Corpus  Plulippkum,  and  contained  the  fol- 
lowing twelve  parts :  The  Three  Ecumenical  Creeds,  Luther 's 
Catechisms,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  "and  especially  also  in 
connection  with  the  later  the  first  edition,  Latin  and  German, 
which  at  Naumburg,  in  the  year  1561,  was  rectified  and  sub- 
scribed by  the  Electors  and  Princes, ' '  the  Apology,  Schmalkald 
Articles,  Eepetition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1551,  Loci 
Communes  (Strassburg  Edition  of  1523),  Examen  Ordinand- 
orum,  Theological  Definitions,  Reply  to  the  Articles  of  the 
Bavarian  Inquisition,  Reply  concerning  the  Controversy  of 
Stancar,  the  Brandenburg-Nlirnberg  Church  Order  of  1533,  to- 
gether with  Sermons  on  the  Catechism  for  Children.  In  January, 
1573,  this  book  by  decree  was  made  normei  doctrincc  et  Judicii 
for  Ansbach.  ]\Iarch  30,  1573,  it  was  authorized  for  Niirnberg, 
and  remained  in  force  for  a  long  time. 

In  the  year  1578  the  clergy  of  Hohenlohe  were  required  to  sub- 
scribe about  the  same  articles  of  faith  and  books  of  doctrine  as 
those  sho^^Ti  in  the  Niirnberg  Normal  Book.j 

These  Corpora  Doctrince  are  an  object-lesson.  They  show 
that  the  Lutherans  were  by  no  means  united  in  matters  con- 
fessional. Some  inclined  more  to  Luther  and  others  to  Melanch- 
thon.  The  Corpus  Philippicum.  though  not  originally  intended 
to  be  a  norma  Judicii,  and  the  Corpus  Thuringicum,  composed  '  ^ 
in  purposeful  antithesis  to  the  Philippicum,  represent  the  ex- 
tremes. The  former,  inasmuch'  as  it  contained  only  writings  of 
^lelanchthon.  would  naturalh'  lead  its  subscribers  to  a  one-sided 
development  of  the  ]\Ielanchthonian  type  of  doctrine,  especially 
when  exposed,  as  they  were,  to  hard  pressure  from  an  extreme 
presentation  of  Lutherism  as  the  same  was  exhibited  in  the  Cor- 
pus  Thuringicum.  and  as.  beginning  especially  in  1558  at  the  '^ 
formal  opening  of  the  University  of  Jena,  it  had  been  taught  in 

*  Feuerlin-Eiederer,  pp.  7,  8.  Baumgarten,  ut  supra,  pp.  278  et  seqq. 
Salig,  I.,   705-6. 

t  EeaJencycloplidie,^  TV.,  298.  For  additional  information  in  regard  to 
the  Corpora  Boctrinae,  see  Miiller,  Die  Symb.  Bilcher,  7th  ed.,  pp.  cxxii. 
et  seqq. 


320  THE    CONTROVERSIES    WITHIN   THE 

Ducal  Saxony,  where  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus  was  (1557-1561) 
the  ruling  spirit.  Hence  it  may  be  said  that  during  the  sixth 
and  seventh  decades  the  Lutheran  theology  and  the  Lutheran 
Church  were  divided  between  Flacianism  and  Philippism,  though 
the  antagonisms  and  controversies,  represented  by  these  words, 
began  more  than  a  decade  earlier. 

2.  The  Interims. 
Charles  V.  conceived  it  to  be  the  chief  mission  of  his  life  to 
bring  back  the  religious  dissidents  of  Germany  to  unity  with  the 
Catholic  Church.  But  he  could  conceive  of  no  basis  of  unity 
except  that  which  existed  in  the  doctrines,  polity  and  usages  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  He  was  hostile  to  the  Council  of 
Trent,  as  largely  the  creature  of  the  Popes,  and  desired  a  free 
general  council  in  consonance  with  the  demands  of  the  Protest- 
ants. In  this  he  was  opposed  by  the  Popes,  who  did  not  want  a 
council  which  was  not  subservient  to  their  dictation.  Though 
baffled  and  opposed  by  the  Pope,  Charles  resolved  to  secure  to 
the  Church  the  fruits  of  his  many  victories  in  the  Schmalkald 
War.  Consequently  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  which  was  opened 
September  1,  1517,  he  appointed  (February,  1548)  a  committee 
to  prepare  norms  of  doctrine  and  usages  which  should  be  observed 
until  a  final  decision  could  be  rendered  by  a  general  council. 
About  the  middle  of  the  following  month  the  committee  reported 
twenty-six  articles,  which  were  almost  entirely  Catholic  in  form 
and  in  conception.  Among  other  things  it  is  here  taught  that 
Justification  is  equivalent  to  making  righteous;  the  Church  is 
that  which  is  governed  by  Bishops  legitimated  by  the  Apostolic 
succession,  with  power  to  explain  the  Scriptures,  and  subject  to 
the  successor  of  Peter;  the  Seven  Sacraments  are  restored;  the 
Mass  as  an  appropriation  and  memorial  of  the  merits  of  Christ's 
sacrifice  on  the  Cross;  the  invocation  of  the  saints:  daily  JNIasses 
in  the  cities:  Corpus  Cliristi:  though  the  marriage  of  priests  and 
giving  the  cup  to  the  laity  in  communion  were  to  be  tolerated 
until  the  decision  of  the  Council.  These  propositions  were  sup- 
ported and  finally  accepted  by  Elector  Joachim  II.  of  Branden- 
burg and  Palsgrave  Frederick  II.  JNIaurice  of  Saxony  referred 
them  to  his  theologians,  Melanchthon,  Major,  Cruciger  and 
Pfeffinger,  who  at  Alt-Zella,  early  in  April,  1548,  emphatically 
rejected  the  teaching  of  the  articles  on  Justification,  on  the  in- 
vocation of  the  Saints  and  the  Mass,  but  thought  that  some  con- 
cessions might  be  made  in  regard  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church 


LUTHERAN  CHURCH  :  IX  GENERAL.  321 

and  of  the  Sacraments.  May  15th  the  Interim,  then  called  Liber 
Augustanus,  was  officially  announced,  and  June  30th  it  became 
a  law  of  the  Empire.  The  Elector  of  Saxony  protested,  May 
18th.  The  great  majority  of  the  Protestant  Estates  were  opposed 
to  the  Interim,  knowing  that  it  was  the  death-knell  of  Protest- 
antism, but  only  a  few  thought  of  opposing  a  public  protest.* 
Melanchthon  showed  special  opposition  to  this  Augsburg  Interim. 
He  called  it,  ' '  This  sophistical  book, ' '  and  declared  that  it  would 
be  the  cause  of  new  wars  and  of  greater  alienations  in  the 
Church,  said  that  he  would  not  burden  his  conscience  with  it, 
and  wrote  to  his  friend  Camerarius:  "So  long  as  I  live  I  will 
act  as  I  have  hitherto  done,  and  I  shall  speak  the  same  things 
wherever  I  shall  be.  I  shall  continue  the  same  worship  of  God 
and  shall  speak  with  my  accustomed  moderation,  and  without 
violence,  "t  His  conduct  was  all  that  could  be  reasonably  ex- 
pected of  him  in  these  perilous  times. 

But  the  more  than  half -apostate  ^Maurice  and  some  of  his 
counsellors,  especially  Christopher  von  Carlowitz,  who  was  act- 
ing in  the  pay  of  Charles,  were  intent  upon  close  approxima- 
tion to,  if  not  reconciliation  with,  the  Catholics.  Accordingly, 
conventions  of  civil  counsellors  and  theologians  were  summoned 
in  July,  August,  October  and  November,  respectively  at  Meissen, 
Pegau,  Torgau  and  Zelle.  The  theologians  persisted  in  their 
opposition  to  the  civil  counsellors  who  wished  to  enforce  the 
Interim.  Finally  at  Zelle,  under  the  insistence,  threats  and 
sophistical  argumentations  of  the  civil  authorities,  joined  with 
the  reproach  that  they  were  disturbers  of  the  peace,  the  theolo- 
gians yielded  to,  rather  than  approved,  the  formula  which  was 
presented  by  the  civil  counsellors  November  19th.  "When  they 
saw  what  they  had  done,"  says  von  Ranke,  "they  were  amazed 
that  they  had  allowed  themselves  to  be  led  so  far.  They  com- 
plained that  they  had  been  overwhelmed  by  the  purposes  of  the 
lords.  Their  consolation  was  that  all  that  they  had  conceded 
could  be  reconciled  with  the  truth,  and  that  this  yoke  was  only 
taken  upon  themselves  in  order  that  they  might  not  surrender 
the  Church  to  desolation.  And  so  much  is  certain,  that  though 
they  yielded  and  followed,  still  they  did  not  violate  the  Evangeli- 
cal system  in  its  essence.  Many  of  these  dogmas  and  ceremonies 
were  such  as  Luther,  at  the  beginning,  had  not  wished  to  over- 

*  See  Preger,  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus,  p.  6  et  seqq.    Moller,  Kircheng., 
3d  ed..  III.,  1.54  et  seqq.    Bealencycloimdie?  Art.   Interim. 
t  C.  E.  VI.,  878. 

21 


322  THE   CONTROVERSIES    WITHIN    THE 

throw.  But  what  an  immense  difference  between  allowing  the 
traditional  to  stand  for  a  time,  and  the  restoration  of  that  which 
had  been  already  abolished."  * 

This  formula  was  ratified  at  Leipzig,  December  21,  1548,  and 
made  a  law  for  the  Saxon  Electorate.  The  Article  of  Justifica- 
tion is  stated  according  to  the  Lutheran  conception.  Some  of 
the  other  articles  are  capable  of  a  Lutheran  interpretation.  But 
as  a  whole,  the  Article  of  Justification  excepted,  the  Formula  is 
decidedly  CatJioUcizing.  It  restores  nearly  all  the  usages  then 
current  in  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  under  the  name  of 
Adiaphora,  that  is,  of  things  indifferent,  which  may  be  held 
without  injury  to  Holy  Scripture.  Ordination  is  committed  to 
the  Bishops.  Corpus  Christi  is  revived.  The  Mass  is  ordered  to 
be  said  essentially  as  in  Roman  Catholic  churches.  Confession 
and  absolution  are  made  obligatory  in  the  sense  that  no  one 
is  allowed  to  receive  the  sacrament  who  has  not  first  confessed 
to  the  priest  and  been  absolved.  In  a  word,  except  as  above 
indicated,  the  document  is  almost  a  complete  renunciation  of  the 
Reformation  and  of  the  Evangelical  doctrine. f   Hence : 

That  this  new  Formula,  which  was  now  imposed  upon  the 
Saxon  churches — essentially  a  doing  of  the  civil  authorities — as 
a  directory  for  teaching,  preaching,  administration  and  worship, 
should  excite  great  commotion,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at.  In  a 
short  time  protests  and  letters  of  inquiry  came  to  Witten- 
berg and  to  Leipzig  from  individual  cities  and  Estates.  ]Mel- 
anchthon  became  almost  heartbroken.  But  he  repented  his  sin 
and  asked  God  for  pardon,  though  he  had  never  given  an 
unqualified  approval  of  the  document.  He  simply  regarded 
' '  the  transactions  at  Leipzig  as  tolerable ' '  in  view  of  ' '  the  perils 
that  threatened  the  churches  and  the  State. "  He  "  wanted  some 
things  considered  differently  and  done  differently. ' '  %  His  gen- 
eral attitude  was  that  the  Formula  contains  nothing  that  ■  is 
directly  contrary  to  sound  doctrine,  that  the  Church  has  not 
been  abandoned,  that  the  voice  of  truth  has  not  been  hushed, 
that  some  servitude  must  be  borne,  provided  it  can  be  done  with- 
out committing  ungodliness,  that  the  Church  must  be  saved  from 
such  desolation  as  had  overtaken  it  in  Swabia,  where,  in  conse- 

*  Deutsche  Ge^chiclite,  vol.  5,  57.  See  C.  E.  \Tl.,  258-9  (Interim  Lip- 
siense).   Eealencyclopadie,'^  VI.,  777. 

t  Original  in  C.  E.  VII.,  259  et  seqq.  English  translation  by  Jacobs,  Bool^ 
of  Concord,  II.,  260  ct  seqq. 

t  C.  E.  VII.,  275-292.  Von  Eanke,  vol.  5,  pp.  58-60.  Eiehard,  Philip 
Melanchthon,  333  et  seqq. 


LUTHEKAX  CHURCH  :  IN  GENERAL.  323 

quence    of    the    enforcement    of   the    Augsburg    Interim,    four 
hundred  pastors  had  been  driven  into  banishment.* 

"Unfortunate  circumstance,"  exclaims  von  Ranke.  Yes,  ''un- 
fortunate circumstance,"  chiefly  because  it  introduced  the  spirit 
of  schism  into  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  has  haunted  it  to  this 
day.t 

3.     Flacianisni. 

Now  it  was  that  Flacianism  arose.  Matthias  Flacius,  often 
called  Illyricus,  was  born  at  Albona  in  Istria,  March  3,  1520. 
After  receiving  the  rudiments  of  education  at  home,  he  studied 
for  a  time  in  Venice,  and  was  about  to  enter  the  University  of 
Padua  or  of  Bologna  to  study  theology  with  the  intention  of 
becoming  a  preacher,  when  his  uncle,  Baldo  Lupetino,  pointed 
him  to  Luther  as  a  restorer  of  the  Gospel,  and  sent  him,  in  1539, 
to  Germany.  He  studied  for  awhile  at  Basel  and  then  went  to 
Tiibingen.J  In  1541  he  made  his  way  to  Wittenberg,  where  he 
was  warmly  welcomed  by  both  Luther  and  Melanchthon.  He 
was  already,  or  at  least  soon  became,  an  adept  in  Latin,  Greek 
and  Hebrew.  In  1544  he  was  appointed  to  the  professor- 
ship of  the  Hebrew  language  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg. 
Very  soon  he  made  himself  laaown  by  the  productions  of  his 
pen.  In  1548  he  attacked  the  Augsburg  Interim  pseudonym- 
ously,  and  sought  to  cast  discredit  upon  Melanchthon 's  leader- 
ship, though  Melanchthon  had  firmly  resisted  that  Interim.  No 
sooner  did  the  Leipzig  Formula  become  kno^^-n  than  he  opened 
a  combat  against  it,  and  against  the  Wittenbergers.§  He  it 
was  who  called  the  Formula  agreed  upon  at  Leipzig,  the  Leipzig 
Interim,  a  name  by  which  it  is  now  almost  universally  kno"wn. 
The  attack  upon  the  Wittenbergers  brought  him  into  strained 
relations.  About  Easter  (1549)  he  informed  Melanchthon  that 
for  the  sake  of  his  health,  and  to  escape  the  innovations,  he 
would,  for  a  time,  leave  Wittenberg.  1 1  He  went  first  to  ]\Ligde- 
burg,  then  to  Liineburg,  then  to  Hamburg,  and  then  came  back 
to  Magdeburg,  because  here  the  press  was  free.  Here  he  started 
afresh  on  a  career  of  polemical  activity,  which  in  extent,  in  vigor, 
in  bitterness,  in  calunmiation,  in  persistence,  has  had  no  equal 
in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church.     His  assaults  on  JSlel- 

*  C.  R.  VII.,  252. 

t  Nearly  all  the  documents  connected  with  the  Interims  are  given  by  H. 
Th.  Hergang  in  his  Das  Augshurger  Interim,  1855. 

t  See  Flacius 's  own  account  in  Vertlieidigungsschrift,  reprinted  in 
Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus.   By  Dr.  A.  Twesten,  pp.  -36  et  seqq. 

§  Vertlieidigungsschrift,  p.  41,  and  Bealencyclopddie,^  Art.  Flacius. 

\\  Preger,  itt  supra,  p.  74. 


324  THE    CONTROVERSIES    WITHIN    THE 

anclithon  exhibit  the  instincts  of  a  wild  beast  rather  than  the 
graces  of  a  Christian  man.  Melanchthon  charges  him  with  in- 
venting manifesta  mendacia.  Certain  it  is  that  he  descended  to 
the  loAV  expedient  of  publishing  some  of  Luther's  private  letters 
— obtained  either  by  theft  or  in  confidence — to  Melanchthon,  for 
the  purpose  of  contrasting  the  steadfastness  of  the  former  with 
the  complacency  of  the  latter.  He  made  Luther — chiefly  the 
polemical  Luther — the  Paragon,  and  thus  set  the  pace  for  appeal 
to  Luther — chiefly  to  the  polemical  Luther— as  the  final  author- 
ity for  doctrine.  Indeed,  he  sometimes,  and  in  some  subjects, 
out-Luthered  Luther,  erected  some  of  Luther's  rhetorical  utter- 
ances into  premises  and  drew  conclusions  from  which  Luther — 
especially  the  later  Luther — would  have  revolted.  Thus  we 
have  Flacianism,  which  is  a  one-sided  presentation  of  Lutherism 
intensified. 

In  judging  of  the  motives  which  governed  Flacius  in  leaving 
Wittenberg  and  in  attacking  the  Leipzig  Interim  and  the  Witten- 
bergers  with  such  fierce  violence,  historians  do  not  agree.  The 
reasons  given  by  himself,  namely,  on  account  of  his  health  and 
to  escape  the  innovations,  are  not  wholly  satisfactory.*  At  "Wit- 
tenberg it  was  charged  that  his  hostility  to  Melanchthon  arose 
from  the  fact  that  he  was  not  given  the  professorship  made 
vacant  by  the  death  of  Cruciger,  and  this  is  declared  by  Mel- 
anchthon himself,  who  wrote  to  George  Fabricius  that  they  had 
nourished  a  real  viper  in  their  bosoms,  and  that  he  ought  to  have 
stigmata  branded  upon  his  forehead,  such  as  the  King  of  Macedon 
had  branded  upon  a  soldier:  Ungrateful  Guest.f  In  his  con- 
duet  towards  Melanchthon  he  was,  to  say  the  least,  an  ungrate- 
ful guest.  That  he  was  constrained  also  by  conscience  cannot  be 
denied.  But  neither  his  conscience  nor  his  methods  can  be  ap- 
proved, though  the  principle  of  heredity  may  account  for  both. 
He  was  not  a  German.  He  did  not  speak  the  German  language. 
He  could  not  enter  into  sympathy  with  Germanic  conditions. 
He  was  a  scion  of  that  wild,  lawless  Illyrian  stock,  which  for  two 
thousand  years  had  been  a  menace  and  a  terror  to  its  neighbors, 
both  East  and  West.  The  blood  of  his  forefathers  coursed 
through  his  veins.     It  is  in  his  hereditary  disposition,  doubtless, 

*  Preger,  ut  supra,  p.  74. 

t  C.  E.  VII.,  449.  For  Melanchthon 's  defense  against  the  calumniations 
of  Flacius  and  his  manifestum  mendacium,  see  C.  E.  VII.,  477  et  seqq. ; 
also  Eichard's  FMlip  Melanchthon,  pp.  342  et  seqq.  See  also  Eossel's 
Melanchthon  und  das  Interim,  printed  as  Beilage  to  Twesten's  Matthias 
Flacius  Illyricus,  and  Ellinger,  Lehen  Melanchthons. 


LUTHERAN  CHURCH  :  IN  GENERAL.  325 

that  we  are  to  seek  for  an  explanation  of  the  violence  and  reck- 
lessness of  his  conduct  as  a  controversialist.  He  sought  not  so 
much  to  refute  an  opponent,  as  to  annihilate  an  enemy.  On  the 
one  hand  his  mind  Avas  bent  towards  the  annihilation  of  Melanch- 
thon's  influence  in  the  Church.  On  the  other  hand  it  was  bent 
towards  the  erection  of  a  Lutheran  Church  on  the  foundation 
of  Luther's  controversies  with  Rome  and  with  the  Zwinglians. 

But  notwithstanding  the  objections  here  raised  to  his  animus 
and  to  his  methods  it  is  cheerfully  conceded — and  that  on  the 
principle  of  honor  to  whom  honor — that  Flacius  rendered  in- 
valuable service  in  counteracting  the  Leipzig  Interim  and  in  re- 
ducing it  to  naught.  He  had  and  inculcated  the  correct  idea 
of  AdiapJiora,  namely,  that  as  things  neither  commanded  nor 
forbidden  by  the  Divine  Word,  they  may  be  tolerated  and  re- 
ceived in  the  exercise  of  Christian  freedom,  but  they  are  not  to 
be  imposed  by  authority,  nor  forced  upon  the  Church  by  a  hostile 
power,  nor  made  a  test  of  soundness  in  the  Christian  faith.  He 
also  had  the  correct  idea  of  the  relation  that  the  State  should 
sustain  to  the  Church,  namely,  that  the  former  should  not  dic- 
tate the  faith  and  the  form  of  worship  to  the  latter,  but  should 
protect  the  latter  in  her  own  proper  sphere  of  teaching  and 
preaching  the  Gospel. 

At  Magdeburg,  Flacius  found  congenial  companions  in  Nicho- 
las Amsdorf,  Erasmus  Alber,  Nicholas  Gallus  and  others  who 
had  suffered  more  or  less  from  the  Schmalkald  War.  The 
coterie  called  themselves  "exiles  of  God."  Their  literary  activ- 
ity was  prodigious.  Most  of  it — even  in  spirit  and  purpose  the 
invaluable  Magdeburg  Centuries — was  polemical,  and  much  of 
it  was  directed  against  Leipzig  and  Wittenberg.  In  the  year  1550 
they  published  a  confession  of  faith  which  they  declare  to  be 
founded  on  the  Prophetical  and  Apostolic  Scriptures,  and  to  be 
in  harmony  with  the  Augsburg  Confession.*  Soon  they  were 
engaged  in  strife  against  the  proposition  of  George  Major  that 
good  works  are  necessary  to  salvation,  and  against  the  doctrine 
of  Osiander  that  men  are  justified  by  the  infusion  of  the  essen- 
tial righteousness  of  Christ  through  faith,  against  the  Mys- 
ticism of  Schwenckfeld,  and,  by  and  by,  against  the  doctrine  of 
Free-will  as  it  was  taught  at  Leipzig  and  Wittenberg.  But 
what  made  the  ecclesiastical  situation  the  more  complicated  and 
distressing  was  the  political  animosity  existing  between  the  two 
Saxon  lines,  of  which  we  have  already  made  frequent  mention. 
*  Given  in  Hortleder,  II.,  Bk.  7,  1053  et  seqq. 


326  THE    CONTROVERSIES    WITHIN    THE 

Since  the  Partition  of  Leipzig  in  1485,  the  Electorate  had 
^  been  in  the  Ernestine  line,  and  the  Duchy  in  the  Albertine  line. 
Ernest  died  in  1486  and  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Frederick  the 
"Wise  (1486-1525).  He  was  succeeded  by  his  brother,  John 
(1525-1532),  the  enthusiastic  friend  of  the  Reformation  and 
the  head  of  the  Schmalkald  League.  He  was  succeeded  by  his 
son,  John  Frederick.  In  Ducal  Saxony  Albert  was  succeeded  by 
■i  his  son,  George  the  Bearded  (1500-1539),  a  zealous  Roman  Cath- 
olic and  an  ardent  opponent  of  the  Reformation.  George  was 
succeeded  by  his  brother,  Henry  (1539-1541),  who  was  a  devoted 
•'  Protestant.  Henry  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Maurice,  also  a 
V  Protestant,  but  a  man  who  subordinated  his  religion  to  his  politi- 
cal interests.  In  the  Schmalkald  War  he  joined  the  Emperor 
against  his  kinsman,  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  who  was  captured 
at  the  battle  of  INIiihlberg  and  condemned  to  death,  though  for 
political  reasons  the  sentence  was  commuted  to  imprisonment. 
John  Frederick  bore  his  misfortune  with  Christian  resignation, 
and  asserted  his  adherence  to  the  Protestant  religion  with  heroic 
fortitude.  His  patience  in  affliction  and  his  steadfastness  as  a 
confessor  of  Christ  excited  the  sympathy  and  won  the  admira- 
tion of  all  good  and  true  Lutherans.  Soon  he  was  regarded  as  a 
martyr,  and  justly  so.    He  was  witnessing  a  good  confession. 

After  the  capitulation  of  Wittenberg  the  Electoral  dignity 
and  8  part  of  its  lands  were  bestowed  upon  Maurice  as  the  re- 
ward of  his  services  to  the  Emperor.  Thus  the  Electorate  passed 
to  the  Albertine  line,  and  the  Ernestine  line  was  reduced  to  the 
rank  of  dukes.  Maurice  was  regarded — and  justly  so — as  the 
betrayer  of  the  faith  of  his  father  and  of  his  people,  and  was 
called  "the  Judas  of  Meissen."  Soon  Roman  Catholic  prelates 
were  reinstated  in  the  three  influential  bishoprics  of  Meissen, 
Merseburg  and  Naumburg-Zeitz.  Then  came  the  Leipzig  In- 
terim which  he  and  his  courtiers  forced  upon  the  theologians, 
and  which  they  tried  to  impose  upon  the  churches  of  Electoral 
Saxony.  It  was  but  natural  that  the  new  Elector  should  be  hated 
by  all  Lutherans;  and  it  was  but  natural  that  the  Ernestine 
Dukes  should  hate  him,  and  that  they  should  array  themselves, 
against  him  both  in  relio'ioTi  and  in  politics. 

Very  soon  these  Dukes,  sons  of  the  ex-Elector  John  Fred- 
erick, resolved  to  establish  a  university  at  Jena,  and  sought  to 
place  Melanchthon  at  the  head  of  it.  Melanchthon  counseled 
against  the  proposition  on  the  grounds  that  it  would  probably 
incronse  the  hostility  tow^ards  John  Fi-ederick  and  his  family. 


LUTHERAN  CHURCH  :  IN  GENERAL.  327 

and  that  it  would  cost  a  great  deal  of  money.  ' '  The  Princes  are 
poor  and  in  debt."  At  the  same  time  he  insisted  that  Witten- 
berg was  the  place  for  the  university,  since  the  sciences  and  arts 
had  flourished  there.*  But  as  the  AYeimar  court  insisted  he 
sketched  the  plan  for  a  new  university,  though  he  did  not  give 
a  categorical  promise  to  come  to  Jena.  When  he  learned,  July 
18,  1547,  that  the  theologians  had  been  summoned  to  Leipzig 
by  Maurice,  and  that  a  messenger  had  been  sent  to' Weimar  for 
him,  he  hastened  to  Leipzig.  Here  Maurice  promised  the  theolo- 
gians "that  he  would  not  allow  any  papal  abuses  to  be  intro- 
duced; nor  would  he  tolerate  anything  contrary  to  the  AVord 
of  God,  but  as  a  Christian  Elector  he  would  protect  the  Word 
of  God  and  its  ministers  to  the  best  of  his  ability. ' '  f  Declin- 
ing all  other  invitations,  Melanchthon  decided  in  favor  of  "the 
little  nest  on  the  Elbe, ' '  whither  he  traveled,  July  25th,  in  com- 
pany with  the  other  theologians.  Here  it  was  his  delight  "to 
gather  together  the  planks  of  the  shipwrecked  university. ' ' 

But  his  decision  to  return  to  Wittenberg,  not  his  theology, 
and  his  zeal  in  re-establishing  the  university  under  the  patronage 
of  Maurice,  were  construed  by  the  Weimar  court  as  an  act  of 
ingratitude  towards  his  former  lord.  To  this  was  added  the 
charge,  by  those  who  had  been  driven  from  their  places  by  the 
Schmalkald  War,  that  Melanchthon  meant  to  change  the  Luth- 
eran doctrine,  an  allegation  which  Alelanehthon  denied  again 
and  again,  and  which  he  refuted  absolutely  by  the  Gonfessio 
Saxonica,  composed  in  1551,  and  by  his  repeated  affirmations  of 
adherence  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  to  its  Apology, 
though  nothing  that  he  could  do  or  say  satisfied  either  the 
Weimar  court  or  the  Magdeburg  "exiles  of  God;"  and  the 
political  animosity  of  the  Dukes  excited  the  feelings  of  the  theo- 
logians and  shaped  their  policy  and  their  conduct  in  matters  of 
religion.  J 

Hence  it  was,  with  the  view  of  asserting  and  of  maintaining 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  as  they  had  conceived  it,  under  such  a 
frame  of  mind,  and  as  it  had  been  drilled  into  them  by  Amsdorf , 
and  other  Flacianists  residing  in  their  court,  that  these  Dukes 
in  1558  erected  the  Jena  Gymnasium  into  a  university,  and 
called  thither  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus  as  Professor  of  Theology. 
Henceforth,  except  for  a  short  interval,  Jena  was  the  stronghold 

*Bmdseil's  Supplement  a,  p.  541. 

t  C.  E.  VI.,  605. 

t  See  Eieharcl's  Philip  'Melanchthon,  pp.  320  et  seqq. 


328  THE    COA'TROVERSIES    WITHIN    THE 

of  the  Flacianist  type  of  Lutheranism  as  against  Leipzig  and 
Wittenberg  and  the  Melanehthon  type.  It  soon  became  custom- 
ary to  speak  of  the  theologians  of  Ducal  Saxony  and  of  the 
theologians  of  Electoral  Saxony,  or  of  the  Ernestine  and  of 
the  Albertine  theologians.  Such  designations  were  understood 
to  mean  differences  in  doctrine  and  in  tendency.  From  the 
very  beginning  of  the  new  university  (1558),  the  two  classes 
were  arrayed  in  theological  strife  against  each  other.  Jena 
made  an  attack  the  day  on  which  she  was  formally  opened. 
The  other  side  repelled  the  attack  and  made  counter  attacks. 
The  one  side  became  as  polemical  and  as  bitter  as  the  other, 
and  both  sides  were  influenced  by  the  jealousies  and  animosi- 
ties entertained  by  their  respective  Princes. 

The  theologians  of  Ducal  Saxony  carried  their  disputes  with 
Melanehthon  and  others  to  the  Diet  of  AVorms,  September,  1557, 
and  refused  to  take  part  in  the  colloquy  with  the  Catholics,  un- 
less Melanehthon  and  other  Lutheran  theologians  would  agree 
to  subscribe  their  catalogue  of  condemnations.*  "When  this  was 
refused  the  Ducal  theologians  Avithdrew,  and  the  Diet  was 
broken  off,  as  the  Catholics  declined  to  recognize  either  party 
as  the  representatives  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  next  year  a 
number  of  Evangelical  Princes,  assembled  at  Frankfort  on  the 
Main,  endeavored  to  put  an  end  to  the  strife  by  the  publication, 
March  18th,  of  a  mild  and  considerate  declaration,  known  as 
the  FranJi'fort  Recess,  based  on  two  essays,  the  one  written  by 
Melanehthon  and  the  other  by  John  Brentz.f  This  Recess  was 
promptly  rejected  by  John  Frederick  the  Second,  who  in  the 
following  year  set  up  the  Confutation  Boolx,  which  was  made 
legally  binding  on  the  clergy  and  on  the  professors  in  the 
Duchy. t  When  Victorine  Strigel  and  the  venerable  Pastor 
Hiigel  refused  to  subscribe  it  tl^ey  were  thrown  into  prison 
and  brutally  treated.§  Then  came  the  Weimar  Disputation. 
August,  1560,  between  Strigel  and  Flacins  on  Free-will  and 
Original  Sin.||  In  1558-9  a  dispute  arose  at  Heidelberg  over 
the  Lord's  Supper.  The  Elector  Frederick  expelled  the  quar- 
relsome theologians  and  in  reaction  against  Flacianist  extremes 

*  Salig,  III.,  295.    Planck,  Geschichie  der  Prot.  Tlieol.,  VI.,  129  et  seqq. 

t  Gieseler,  Church  History,  IV.,  444,  and  note.  The  text  of  the  Frank- 
fort Recess  is  given  in  C.  E.  IX.,  489  et  seqq.  It  was  signed  by  the  three 
Electors,  Otto  Heinrich,  Angustiis,  .Joachim;  by  Palsgrave  Wolfgang,  Duke 
Christopher  of  Wiirtemberg,  Philip  Landgrave  of  Hesse. 

t  Gieseler,  Church  History,  IV.,  44.5. 

§  Moller-Kawerau,  III.,  284.    Planck,  IV.,  599,  600,  and  note  172. 

II  Edidit  Simon  Musaeus,  1562,  1563. 


LUTHERAN  CHURCH  :  IN  GENERAL.  329 

brought  in  theologians  who  favored  the  Calvinistic  view.*  This 
and  other  events  so  enraged  John  Brentz,  that  at  a  Synod  in 
Stuttgart,  December  19,  1559,  he  procured  the  adoption  of  a 
Confession  which  not  only  reaffirmed  the  strict  Lutheran  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  included  the  doctrine  of  the 
absolute  ubiquity  of  the  body  of  Christ,  based  on  the  com- 
municatio  idiomatum.j  From  1557  to  1562  a  controversy  over 
the  Lord's  Supper  raged  in  Bremen,  resulting  in  the  acceptance, 
by  the  city,  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine. t 

4.     Crypto-Calvinism. 

This  controversy  over  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper 
soon  became  exceedingly  violent  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  In 
some  places  in  Northern  CTcrmany  and  in  Ducal  Saxony  some 
of  the  defenders  of  the  strict  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Supper 
went  to  the  very  verge  of  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine.  The 
Philippists  in  Northern  Germany  and  the  Philippists  in  Elec- 
toral Saxony,  who  showed  decided  sympathy  with  the  Calvin- 
istic view,  and  in  some  instances  held  it,  were  stigmatized  as 
Crypto-Calvinists.  As  the  Flacianists  had  carried  Luther's 
teaching  of  the  Lord's  Supper  to  an  unjustifiable  extreme  in 
one  direction,  so  did  the  Philippists  carry  Melanchthon's  teach- 
ing on  the  subject  to  an  equally  unjustifiable  extreme  in  the 
opposite  direction.  Neither  side  maintained  the  Lutlier-^Iel- 
anchthon  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

For  a  time  the  Philippists  succeeded  in  deceiving  the  Elector, 
who  always  meant  to  be  a  Lutheran  and  wished  to  preserve  his 
land  from  the  intrusion  of  Calvinism.  In  the  presence  of  their 
Prince  these  men  claimed  to  be  Lutheran.  In  reality  they  fa- 
vored the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  Avas 
shown  in  the  Catechism  which  appeared  at  Wittenberg  in  1571,  § 
which  presented  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in  language 
that  may  be  regarded  as  a  cross  between  Lutheranism  and  Cal- 
vinism. It  declares  that  "the  Son  of  God  is  truly  and  substan- 
tially present  in  the  sumption,"  but  it  employs  the  word  cre- 

*  Moller-Kaweran,  III.,  263.    Gieseler,  IV.,  459. 

t  MoUer-Kawerau,  III.,  263.  Gieseler,  IV.,  451-2.  The  Confession  is 
republished  by  PfafP  in  Ada  et  Scripta  Puhlica  Ecclesiae  Wirtemhergicae 
(Tiibingen,  1720),  334  et  seqq. 

t  Moller-Kaweraii,  III.,  264-5.    Gieseler,  IV.,  456. 

§  Cateehisis  continens  explicationem  simplicem  et  brevem  Decalogi,  Sym- 
boli  apostolioi.  Orationis  Dominicae,  Doctrinae  de  Poenitentia  et  Saera- 
mentis.  Wittebergae,  1571.  Walch,  Einleitung  in  die  Eeligionsstreitigleiten, 
4,  5,  p.  69.   Planck,  V.,  571-8.   Gieseler,  IV.,  465,  note  33. 


330  THE  contkovp:ksiks  within  the 

dentihiis  where  the  Lutheran  doctrine  requires  vescentibus,  as  in 
Article  X.  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  This  brought  on  a  storm 
of  dissent,  not  only  from  the  Flacianists,  but  also  from  some 
divines  in  Liineburg,  Brunswick  and  other  places.* 

The  Elector  was  quieted  for  a  time  by  the  Dresden  Consensus, 
which  was  subscribed  and  presented  at  Dresden,  October  10,  1571, 
and  which  treats  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  of  the  Person  and  in- 
carnation of  Christ.  But  this  Consensus  failed  to  give  satisfac- 
tion, especially  to  the  zealots  and  to  the  advocates  of  the  doctrine 
of  ubiquity  and  of  oral  manducation.  Beyond  question,  it  con- 
tains ambiguities  that  bring  it  under  suspicion  of  Calvinizing.i 

But  soon  the  crisis  came.  Upon  the  death  of  Duke  John 
William  of  Saxony,  March  3,  1573,  Augustus  took  the  guardian- 
ship of  the  young  Princes  and  the  regency  of  the  Thuringian 
lands.  Immediately  he  expelled  Heshuss  and  Wigand  from  Jena, 
and  drove  away  all  the  Flacianist  clergy  from  the  district.  The 
Philippists  now  thought  that  their  victory  was  complete,  espe- 
cially since  during  the  year  1573  scarcely  anything  of  importance 
had  been  published  against  them.  .  They  thought  that  now  the 
time  had  come  to  make  an  open  avowal  of  their  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Accordingly,  in  January,  1574,  appeared,  without  the  name  of 
the  author  or  the  place  of  publication,  the  Exegesis  Perspicua.t 
It  was  subsequently  ascertained  that  the  author  was  Joachim 
Curaeus  (died  in  1573),  a  Silesian  physician,  who  had  interested 
himself  in  the  study  of  theology.  The  publisher  was  Ernest 
Vogelin,  of  Leipzig.  The  booklet  had  been  composed  already  in 
1562.  and  had  been  privately  circulated  in  manuscript.  The 
paper,  the  types  and  other  insignia  employed  by  Vogelin  pointed 
to  Geneva  as  the  place  of  publication.  The  treatise  was  secretly 
circulated  in  Wittenberg,  and  was  sent  to  Heidelberg  and  to 
France.  The  Heidelbergers,  and  the  Calvinists  generally  ap- 
proved it.  Its  teaching  on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  decidedly  Cal- 
vinistic. There  could  now  be  no  question  that  Calvinism  Avas 
abroad  in  the  land.    The  Elector  August  was  thrown  into  a  vio- 

*  Walch,  Einleitung  in  die  StreitigTceiten,  IV.,  69  et  seqq.  Loescher, 
Historia  Motuum,  III.,  144-147. 

t  Hutter,  Concordia  Concors,  Cap.  3.  Walch,  ut  supra,  pp.  80  et  seqq. 
Planck,  5,  589  et  seqq.     Gieseler,  IV.,  466-7. 

t  Exegesis  Perspicna  et  fermr  Integra  Controversiae  de  Sacra  Coena, 
Scripta  ut  privatim  Conscientias  erudiat  et  Suhjieitur  Judicio  Sociorum 
Confessionis  Augustanae,  Quicunque  candide  et  sine  j^fivatis  afectihus  Judi- 
caturi  Sunt,  Anno  Jesu  Christi  1574.  Kepublished  by  Scheffer,  Marburg, 
1853. 


LUTHEEAN  CHURCH  :  IN  GENERAL.  331 

lent  rage,  and  although  the  Wittenbergers  had  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  composition  of  the  Exegesis  Perspicua,  yet  they  were 
accused  of  smuggling  Calvinism  into  the  Electorate.  Caspar 
Peucer,  JMelanchthon 's  son-in-law",  was  thrown  into  prison,  where 
he  languished  for  twelve  years.  Chancellor  Cracow  was  impris- 
oned and  tortured,  and  left  to  die  in  prison.  The  Court  preach- 
ers Stossel  and  Schiitz  were  also  imprisoned.  The  former  died 
in  prison,  and  the  latter  was  not  released  till  1589.* 

In  i\Iay,  1574,  a  convention  was  held  at  Torgau,  where  arti- 
cles on  the  Lord's  Supper  were  composed,  on  the  presupposition 
of  agreement  of  Luther  and  Melanchthon.  These  articles  are 
known  as  the  Torgau  Confession.  There  it  is  declared,  "the 
foundation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  are  the  words 
of  Christ  taken  in  their  literal  sense.  In  the  Lord's  Supper 
with  the  bread  and  wine  the  true  and  substantial  body  and  the 
true  and  substantial  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  and  substantially, 
though  invisibly  and  in  an  inscrutable  manner,  administered  and 
received."  Transubstantiation  is  rejected,  and  also  the  errors  of 
Calvin,  Beza,  Bullinger,  Martyr,  and  the  theologians  of  Heidel- 
berg. Oral  manducation  and  the  reception  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  by  the  unworthy  are  affirmed.  The  doctrine  of  ubi- 
quity was  rejected.! 

The  four  Wittenberg  divines  who  refused  to  sign  these  articles 
were  banished.  Friedrich  Widebram  and  Christopher  Pezel  went 
to  Nassau,  Heinrich  Moller  to  Hamburg,  Caspar  Cruciger  to 
Hessen.  Thus  Philippism  went  down  in  its  own  stronghold.  But 
the  Torgau  Confession  did  not  satisfy  the  Flacianist  party.    AVi- 

*  For  a  lengthy  account  of  the  Exegesis  see  Loescher,  III.,  163  et  seqq. 
Heppe,  Geschichte,  II.,  Anhang,  following  p.  463.  Hutter,  lit  supra,  Cap. 
IV.  Planck,  5,  2,  606  et  seqq.,  631.  Gieseler,  IV.,  468,  and  note  39.  See 
Moller-Kawerau,  III.,  269.  Calinich,  Eampf  und  Untergang  des  Melanch- 
thonismus,  pp.  100-124. 

t  Gieseler,  IV.,  469,  note  41 ;  Moller-Kawerau,  III.,  269 ;  Calinich,  ut 
supra,  pp.  151  et  seqq.,  164-5.  The  Articles  are  given  by  Hutter,  Cap.  V. 
See  Heppe,  Geschichte,  II.,  432;  Calinich,  ut  supra,  146  et  seqq.  To  com- 
memorate this  triumph  of  Lutheranism  the  Elector  August  had 
ai medal  struck.  On  the  one  side  stand  the  Elector  himself  and  the  Elector 
of  Brandenburg,  each  with  a  book  in  his  hand.  Beneath  them  is  the  legend: 
CONSERVA  APUD  NOS  VERBUM  TUUM  DOMINE.  On  the  reverse 
side  stands  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  with  bare  head  and  pointed  beard,  in 
armor,  upon  a  rock  bearing  the  words:  SCHLOSS  HARTENFELS.  In  his 
right  hand  he  holds  a  sword;  in  the  left,  a  pair  of  scales.  In  the  one  scale 
sits  the  child  Jesus,  holding  the  world  in  his  left  hand,  while  the  right  hand 
points  to  a  floating  title  on  which  is  inscribed :  DIE  ALLMACHT.  In  the 
other  scale  lie  the  four  Wittenberg  theologians,  Cruciger,  Moller,  Wide- 
bram and  Pezel,  with  the  devil  and  a  superscription  bearing  the  words: 
DIE  VERNUNFT.  Anton,  Geschichte  der  Concordienformel,  I.,  pp.  138- 
139. 


332         THE    CONTROVERSIES    WITHIN    THE    LUTHERAN    CHURCH. 

gand,  who  was  now  Bishop  of  Pomesania  in  Prussia,  wrote 
against  it  and  raised  the  question  whether  the  new  professors 
who  had  been  called  to  Wittenberg  were  better  than  those  who 
had  been  expelled.  Even  Selneccer  was  displeased  with  the  Con- 
fession.* 

But  happily  for  Lutheranism,  there  were  many  Lutherans  in 
Germany  who  had  attached  themselves  to  neither  extreme,  though 
V  in  Swabia,  after  1559,  the  theologians  were  mostly  Ubiquitarians, 
and  many  inclined  toward  that  form  of  predestinarianism  which 
had  been  expressed  in  Luther's  earlier  writings.f  In  Mecklen- 
burg, in  Pomerania  and  in  parts  of  Lower  Saxony,  the  theologians 
were  warmly  attached  to  Melanchthon,  and  acknowledged  his 
merits  and  his  great  services  to  the  Church.  It  was  to  the  inter- 
mediates that  the  Elector  of  Saxony  now  attached  himself. 

*  Heppe,  ut  supra,  II.,  440-1.     Gieseler,  IV.,  469,  note  42. 
t  For  Brentz,  see  Hartman  and  Jager,  II.,  400-406. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL   CONTROVERSY. 

The  Lutheran  Reformation  of  the  sixteenth  century  pro- 
ceeded from  a  profound  sense  of  human  need.  Luther,  in  his 
cell  at  Erfurt,  exclaiming:  "My  sin!  My  sin!  Oh!  my  sin," 
voiced  the  sentiment  of  thousands  of  his  countrymen.  Sin  was 
felt  by  them  to  be  a  great  burden,  which  could  be  removed  alone 
by  divine  grace.  Hence  Sin  and  Grace  were  regarded  as  the 
direct  antitheses  of  each  other.  The  one  was  held  to  be  the  cor- 
ruption of  all  the  moral  and  spiritual  powers  of  man.  The  other 
was  defined  as  the  pure  divine  favor  which  is  freely  exercised 
in  the  unmerited  forgiveness  of  sin.  Basing  their  conclusions 
on  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  sin  and  grace,  both  Luther  and 
Melanchthon  referred  the  salvation  of  man  to  the  Will  of  God. 
That  is,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Reformation  both  Luther  and 
Melanchthon  were  absolute  predestinarians.  They  held  that  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  free-will  in  man,  and  that  God  determines 
all  things  absolutely  by  his  own  will. 

1.     As  to  Luther. 

In  his  Assertion  of  All  the  Articles*  1520,  Luther  declared 
that  "Free-will  (liberum  arbitrium)  after  sin  (that  is,  since  sin 
entered  the  world)  is  a  thing  that  exists  in  name  only,  and  so 
long  as  it  acts  according  to  what  it  is  in  itself,  it  sins  mortally, ' ' 
and  that ' '  Free-will  without  grace  is  not  able  not  to  sin. "  "  Free- 
will is  in  reality  a  figment,  or  a  name  without  reality,  because  it 
is  not  in  its  power  to  think  anything  evil  or  good,  but  all  things 
are  under  God,  against  whom  we  can  do  nothing  except  in  so  far 
as  he  himself  permits  or  does."  Over  against  this  absolute  pre- 
destinarianism,  or  rather,  determinism,  Luther  places  the  grace 
of  God,  by  which  alone  men  are  saved. 

In  his  book  on  The  Bondage  of  the  Will  (De  Servo  Arhitrio)  f 
written  in  the  year  1525  against  the  Diatribe  on  Free-will,  by 
Erasmus,  he  makes  a  clear  distinction  between  the  Will  of  God 
as  it  is  in  itself,  inscrutable,  and  the  Will  of  God  as  it  is  revealed 

*  Jena  Edition  of  Works,  II.,   307  et  seqq. 
t  Erlangen  Ed.  of  Works,  Latin,  vol.  7. 

(333) 


334  THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSY. 

in  the  Divine  Word,  or  as  he  sometimes  states  it,  between  "the 
hidden  God"  and  "the  proclaimed  God."  With  the  former  we 
have  nothing  to  do.  Our  business  is  with  the  latter.  According 
to  the  former,  men  are  predestinated  to  death.  According  to  the 
latter,  all  men  are  invited  to  be  saved.  But  this  distinction  can 
be  best  presented  in  Luther's  own  language:  "But  why  some 
are  touched  by  the  law  and  others  are  not  touched,  so  that  the 
former  receive  and  the  latter  contain  the  offered  grace  is  an- 
other question,  and  is  not  treated  in  this  passage  by  Ezekiel,  who 
speaks  of  the  proclaimed  and  offered  mercy  of  God,  and  not  of 
that  secret  and  awful  will  of  God,  who  ordains  by  his  own  counsel 
whom  and  what  kind  of  persons  he  wishes  to  become  capable  and 
participant  of  his  proclaimed  and  offered  mercy.  This  will  of 
God  is  not  the  object  of  research,  as  it  is  by  far  the  most  ven- 
erable secret  of  the  divine  majesty,  is  reserved  to  himself  alone 
and  is  prohibited  to  us  more  religiously  than  the  Corycian  caves 
to  countless  multitudes. 

"When  now  Diatribe  (Erasmus'  book)  captiously  inquires 
w^hether  the  holy  Lord  bewails  the  death  of  his  people,  which  he 
himself  has  wrought  in  them — for  such  a  thing  seems  perfectly 
absurd — I  reply  as  I  have  already  done :  We  must  argue  in  one 
way  concerning  God,  or  the  will  of  God,  proclaimed,  revealed, 
offered  to  us,  and  made  an  object  of  worship,  and  in  another  way 
concerning  God  not  revealed,  not  proclaimed,  not  offered,  not 
made  an  object  of  worship.  In  so  far,  therefore,  as  God  hides 
himself,  and  wills  not  to  be  known  by  us,  he  is  nothing  to  us.  For 
here  holds  good  that  motto :  What  is  above  us,  is  not  for  us, ' ' 
p.  221.     Again :     . 

"The  will  of  God  abandons  and  reprobates  some  purposely, 
that  they  may  perish ;  but  we  must  not  inquire  why  he  acts  thus ; 
but  the  God  who  has  such  power  and  wills  such  things  must  be 
reverenced."  He  also  declares  that  nothing  happens,  mutably 
or  contingently,  but  that  "all  things  happen  necessarily  and  im- 
mutably, if  we  have  regard  to  the  will  of  God.  For  the  will  of 
God  is  effective,  and  cannot  be  thwarted,  since  it  is  by  nature  the 
very  potency  of  God."  He  carries  this  thought  so  far  as  to 
quote  with  approbation  some  of  the  most  fatalistic  passages  from 
Virgil:  "All  things  are  fixed  by  law,"  "a  day  is  appointed  for 
everyone,"  "if  thou  canst  break  the  terrible  fates,"  p.  136.  This 
is  one  side  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  divine  will.  That  will  is 
absolute  in  its  determinations.  It  is  the  thunderbolt  that  annihi- 
lates free-will  in  man. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  835 

But  there  is  another  side.  God  reveals  himself  in  his  ^Yord. 
This  is  "the  proclaimed  God."  Over  against  this  God,  man  has 
voluntas,  the  power  of  choice.  This  God  is  set  forth  before  men 
in  Christ.  Hence  the  obligation  of  men  in  hearing  the  Gospel, 
and  the  responsibility  of  men  in  accepting  or  rejecting  the  offer 
of  salvation.  On  this  point  Luther  utters  no  uncertain  sound: 
' '  Eightly,  therefore,  is  it  said :  If  God  does  not  will  death,  it  must 
be  imputed  to  our  will  if  we  perish.  Rightly  I  say,  if  you  speak 
of  the  proclaimed  God,  for  he  wills  that  all  men  be  saved,  inas- 
much as  by  the  word  of  salvation  he  comes  to  all,  and  it  is  the 
fault  of  the  will  (voluntas),  which  does  not  admit  him.  How 
often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children,  but  ye  would  not. 
Matt.  23,"  pp.  222-3.  After  quoting  Colossians  2:3,  he  says: 
"Therefore  the  Incarnate  God  says  here:  I  would,  but  thou 
wouldest  not.  The  Incarnate  God,  I  say,  was  sent  into  the  world 
that  he  might  will,  might  speak,  might  do,  might  suffer,  might 
offer  for  all  men  all  things  that  are  necessary  unto  salvation," 
pp.  227-8.  Again:  "God  does  not  work  in  us  without  us.  He 
hath  created  and  preserved  us  that  he  might  work  in  us  and  that 
we  might  cooperate  with  him,"  p.  317.  This  is  the  other  side. 
Hence  we  have  Luther  versus  Luther,  and  hence  the  materials 
for  controversy.  Luther  engaged  in  the  contemplation  of  "the 
hidden  God"  is  an  absolute  predestinationist.  Luther  engaged  in 
the  contemplation  of  ' '  the  proclaimed  God "  is  a  Christian  uni- 
versalist,  and  holds  that  it  is  the  sincere  will  of  God  to  save  all 
men.  But  in  constructing  a  system  of  Christian  Anthropology, 
we  have  to  do  with  Luther  the  Christian  universalist,  in  whom 
there  is  not  a  trace  of  particularistic  election.  It  is  true  that 
even  this  Luther  denies  that  man  has  Free-will  {liberum  ar- 
hitrium),  but  he  affirms  that  man  has  the  power  of  choice,  the 
voluntas.  The  liberum  arhitrmm,  the  power  to  merit  salvation 
by  works  that  please  God,  has  been  destroyed  by  sin;  but  the 
voluntas,  the  power  to  lay  hold  on  salvation  when  it  is  offered 
by  divine  grace,  remains,  since  "we  act  volentes  et  ludentes  in 
accordance  with  the  nature  of  the  voluntas,"  p.  157,  and  since 
"God  does  not  work  in  us  without  us,"  p.  317.  In  other  words: 
"Since  God  has  taken  my  salvation  away  from  my  arMtriuni  and 
has  laid  hold  of  it  with  his  own,  and  has  promised  to  save  not  by 
my  own  work  and  running,  but  by  his  grace  and  mercy.  I  am 
at  ease  and  certain  that  he,  since  he  is  faithful,  will  not  lie  to  me, 
and,  because  he  is  powerful  and  great,  no  devils  and  no  adver- 
saries can  overcome  him,  or  can  pluck  me  away  from  him,"  pp. 


336  thp:  anthropological  controversy. 

362-3.  That  is,  salvation  is  wholly  of  grace,  the  human  will  can 
contribute  nothing  towards  it;  but  when  we  speak  of  "the  pro- 
claimed God, "  "  it  must  be  imputed  to  our  voluntas  if  we  perish, ' ' 
p.  222. 

But  this  book,  De  Servo  Arhitrio,  which  is  Luther's  most  im- 
portant contribution  to  anthropology,  is  not  easy  to  reconcile 
with  itself.  In  the  year  1595  the  theological  Faculty  of  Rostock 
declared  that  Luther  spoke  very  Calvinistically  in  this  book.  The 
great  majority  of  the  Lutheran  dogmaticians,  including  such  men 
as  Chemnitz,  Gerhard,  Calovius,  Loescher,  have  excused  the  pre- 
destinarianism  of  the  book  on  the  ground  that  the  light  of  evan- 
gelical knowledge  had  not  yet  fully  dawned  on  Luther.  Some 
few  have  declared  that  there  is  nothing  erroneous  in  the  book. 
It  may  not  be  difficult  to  justify  each  of  these  views,  for  each 
expresses  a  part  of  the  truth.  But  this  is  certain :  The  older 
Luther  became,  the  more  did  he  drop  his  earlier  predestinarian- 
ism  into  the  background,  and  the  more  did  he  lay  stress  on  the 
grace  of  God  and  on  the  means  of  grace,  which  offer  salvation 
to  all  men — in  omnes,  super  omnes — without  partiality,  and  con- 
vey salvation  to  all  who  believe.* 

The  following  view,  expressed  by  Dr.  F.  A.  Philippi,  of  Rostock 
(1882),  accords  well  with  the  facts  in  the  case:  "The  Reforma- 
tion, which  arose  in  opposition  to  the  Romish  semi-Pelagianism, 
and  did  not  proceed  accidentally  from  the  Order  of  Augustine,  in 
the  doctrine  of  sin  and  grace  naturally  went  back  to  the  correct 
principles  of  Augustinism,  to  the  complete  bondage  of  the  will 
through  sin  and  to  the  alone-activity  of  divine  grace  in  the  work 
of  conversion.  At  first  the  doctrine  of  predestination  fell  com- 
pletely into  the  background.  But  when  Erasmus,  in  his  book, 
De  Lihero  Arhitrio,  directed  his  attack  upon  the  vital  principle 
of  the  Reformation,  and  sought  to  bring  the  Church  of  God  to 
reject  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  the  Reformation,  and  to  re- 
turn to  the  Romish  semi-Pelagianism,  and  in  addition,  treated 
the  absolute  predestination  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  the 
Augustinian  doctrine  of  sin  and  grace,  and  held  it  up  as  a  bug- 
bear, then  it  was  that  Luther,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the 
evangelical  basis  of  salvation,  made  a  truly  gigantic  attack  in  this 
theological  dwarf,  in  his  book,  De  Servo  Arhitrio,  and  did  not 
shrink  from  drawing  also  the  inferences  from  his  position,  and  he 
accepted  with  an  over-bold  defiance  of  faith  on  the  one  hand, 

*  See  a  much  more  elaborate  discussion  of  this  whole  subject  in  The 
Lutheran  Quarterly,  1905. 


THE    AXTHKOPOLOGICAL    CONTROVER.-^V.  337 

from  the  premise  of  the  bondage  of  the  will,  the  theological  de- 
duction of  an  unconditional  predestination;  and  on  the  other 
hand,  from  the  premise  of  the  unconditional  omnipotence  and 
eternal  foreknowledge,  the  speculative  conclusion  of  the  bondage 
of  the  will.  But  Luther  merely  accepted  the  position  offered,  him 
by  his  antagonist,  and,  for  the  moment  only,  allowed  himself  to 
be  carried  by  opposition  beyond  the  goal.  In  reality  he  sought 
rather  to  establish  a  basis  than  to  draw  a  conclusion.  And  after- 
wards, both  in  his  doctrine  of  justification,  and  in  the  central 
position  which  it  assumed  for  him,  and  in  his  doctrine  of  the 
means  of  grace,  even  then  already,  and  as  time  went  on.  more 
and  more,  there  was  shown  an  irreconcilable  opposition  to  the 
doctrine  of  absolute  predestination,  whereby  the  latter  was  bound 
to  be  overcome.  Therefore,  Luther  not  only  never  afterwards 
repeated  this  doctrine,  but  in  reality  taught  the  very  opposite  in 
his  unequivocal  proclamation  of  the  universality  of  the  divine 
grace,  and  of  the  all-sufficiency  of  the  merits  of  Christ,  and  of 
the  universal  operation  of  the  means  of  grace,  and  he  even  con- 
troverted that  doctrine  expressly  as  erroneous,  and  by  his  correc- 
tions took  back  his  earlier  utterances  on  that  subject."  * 

In  his  later  writings  we  find  Luther  turning  more  and  more 
from  the  voluntas  heneplaciti,  the- will  of  Cod's  good  pleasure, 
to  the  voluntas  signi,  the  will  of  God's  revelation  in  the  divine 
Word,  through  which  lie  treats  with  us  according  to  our  under- 
standing, until  finally,  in  his  comment  on  Genesis  26:9  (1536- 
1545),  after  urging  his  hearers  to  leave  "the  hidden  God,"  and 
to  know  only  the  God  proclaimed  through  Jesus  Christ,  the  Word, 
the  Sacraments,  the  ministry,  "which  are  bodily  things,  corporeal 
signs  by  which  God  reveals  himself,"  he  says:    "These  things  I 
have  desired  thus  accurately  and  carefully  to  exhort  and  to  teach, 
because  after  my  death  many  will  quote  my  words,  and  from 
these  corroborate  their  own  errors  and  dreams  of  every  kind. 
Among  other  things  I  have  written  that  all  things  are  absolute 
and  necessary,  but  at  the  same  time  I  added  that  we  must  look 
upon  the  revealed  God,  as  we  sing  in  the  Psalm:    He  is  called 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  Sabaoth.  and  there  is  no  other  God ;  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord  Sabaoth,  nor  is  there  any  other  God,  etc.   But  all 
these  passages  they  will  omit,  and  they  will  seize  upon  only  those 
about  the  hidden  God.    Therefore,  you  who  now  hear  me  are  to 
remember  that  I  have  taught  that  we  are  not  to  inquire  about  the 
predestination  of  the  hidden  God.  but  that  we  are  t(i  i-est  in  that 
"  Glaiibenslphve,   2   od..   4,    1.   p.   37. 


338  THK    ANTHR()I>0]XX;i(AI>    CONTROVERSY. 

which  is  revealed  through  the  call  aud  through  the  niiuistry  of 
the  Word.  There  thou  canst  be  certain  of  thy  faith  and  salva- 
tion, and  canst  say :  I  believe  in  the  Son  of  God,  who  hath  said 
'Whoso  believeth  in  the  Son  hath  eternal  life'  (John  3:36). 
Therefore  in  him  there  is  no  condemnation,  nor  wrath,  but  the 
good  Avill  of  God  the  Father.  These  things  I  have  earnestly 
stated  elsewhere  also  in  my  books,  and  I  now  present  them  viva 
voce.    Therefore  I  am  without  blame."  * 

In  the  Synergistic  Controversy  the  Flacianists  laid  the  pre- 
eminent stress  on  the  predestinarian  portions  of  Luther's  earlier 
writings,  on  "the  hidden  God,"  on  the  voluntas  henephiciti, 
and  ignored,  either  absolutely  or  relatively,  the  countervailing 
sections  on  the  universality  of  grace,  on  "the  proclaimed  God," 
on  the  voluntas  signi.  This  one-sidedness  of  presentation  ran  to 
the  very  borderland  of  fate  and  of  Manichaeism. 

2.  Melanchthon. 
In  the  first  edition  of  the  Loci  Communes,  that  is,  the  treatise 
on  the  chief  articles  of  the  Christian  Doctrine,  INIelanchthon 
gives  expression  to  the  most  absolute  predestinarianism,  or  neces- 
sitarianism, or  determinism.  Among  other  things,  he  says : 
"Since  all  things  that  occur,  occur  necessarily  according  to  the 
predestination  of  God,  there  is  no  freedom  of  our  will."  "The 
Scriptures  teach  that  all  things  occur  necessarily."  "The  Scrip- 
ture takes  freedom  from  our  will  by  the  necessity  of  predestina- 
tion." "Neither  in  external  nor  in  internal  operations  is  there 
any  liberty,  but  all  things  occur  according  to  the  divine  deter- 
mination." t  He  even  went  so  far  as  to  say  specifically  that 
David's  adultery,  Paul's  conversion  and  Judas 's  betrayal  of 
Christ  were  predestinated.  But  already  in  the  year  1524  he 
shows  signs  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  doctrine  of  predestina- 
tion as  it  was  taught  at  Wittenberg.  In  an  Excursus  to  the  Com- 
mentary on  Colossians  (1527)  he  asserts  the  natural  and  essen- 
tial freedom  of  the  will  in  the  most  unqualified  terms,  in  that  the 
will  of  man  has  power  to  choose  things  that  belong  to  nature :  but 
man  needs  the  Holy  Spirit  to  renew  and  to  purify  him  before  he 
can  have  spiritual  affections  and  emotions.  In  the  Articles  which 
were  to  be  used  in  reorganizing  the  churches  of  Saxony  and  in 
placing  them  on  an  evangelical  foundation,  known  as  the  Saxon 
Visitation  Articles,  he  declares  that  the  will  is  free  to  do  the 

*  Commentary  on  Genesis,  Op.  Lat.,  6,  pp.  290-300. 
V  r.  R.  21 :  87  et  seqq.     . 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    COXTROVER.SY.  339 

works  of  tlie  law,  but  ' '  that  spiritual  righteousness  must  be  ac- 
cepted from  above."  In  his  Annotations  on  the  Epistle  to  the 
Romans*  (1529)  he  goes  further,  and  says  that  "faith  is  not 
obtained  without  a  struggle.  In  the  entire  course  of  life,  wo  must 
contend  with  our  unbelief  and  nuist  arouse  the  sluggish  con- 
science by  the  Word  and  by  faith."  It  was  while  in  this  frame 
of  mind,  and  with  both  eyes  directed  towards  the  historical  teach- 
ing of  the  Church,  that  Melanchthon  wrote  the  Article  on  Free- 
will (XVIII.)  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  which  it  is  taught 
"that  to  some  extent  man  has  freedom  of  will  to  lead  a  life  out- 
wardly honest,  and  to  choose  betAveen  things  which  reason  com- 
prehends ;  but  without  the  grace,  assistance  and  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  he  is  unable  to  become  pleasing  to  God,  or  to  fear 
God  in  the  heart,  or  to  believe  in  him,  or  to  cast  out  of  the  heart 
innate  e\il,"  ^vhich  is  explained  in  the  Apology  "that  the  will 
directs  the  understanding  so  that  it  assents  to  the  Word  of  God, ' ' 
and  "faith  is  to  will  and  to  accept  that  which  is  offered  in  the 
promise." 

The  doctrine  of  Predestination  and  of  Free-will,  as  the  same 
had  been  taught  in  his  own  and  in  Luther's  earlier  writings,  he 
had  now  abandoned,  and  he  purposely  refrained  from  placing 
an  Article  on  Predestination  in.the  Confession,  lest  it  might  bring 
inextricable  confusion.    To  the  doctrine  of  Free-will,  as  set  forth 
in  the  Confession  and  in  the  Apology,  he  adhered  to  the  end  of 
his  life,  for  to  the  end  of  his  life  he  confessed  and  reconfessed 
the  Confession  and  Apology.     In  the  Loci  of  the  second  period 
(1535-1543)    and   of   the   third    period    (1543-1559)    he   made 
changes  in  the  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Free-will,  but  no 
change  in  the  doctrine  itself,  and  nobody  found  fault  with  his 
changes.    Here  he  wrote  in  regard  to  conversion :    "Three  causes 
are  conjoined:  The  Word,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Hot  wholly 
inactive     (non    sane    otiosa),    but    resisting    its    own     weak- 
ness,"   and    said:     "Only    will,    and    God    anticipates,"    and: 
"God  draws,  but  draws  him  who  is  willing";  and  in  the  latter 
edition  he  used  the  words  "assenting  to  and  not  resisting  the 
Word  of  God,"  and  declared  that  "the  Will  is  not  a  statue,  and 
spiritual  emotion  is  not  impressed  upon  it  as  though  it  were  a 
statue."     Against  this  teaching  no  Lutheran  voice  was  raised 
during  the  period.    All  alike  subscribed  the  Confession  and  Apol- 
ogy—old    and     new     editions— and     all     alike     lauded     and 
praised  the  Loci,  wiiich  was  passing  into  new  editions,  Latin  and 

*  C.  E.  15  :  444. 


840  THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTliOVEUSY. 

German,  more  rapidly  than  the  years  changed.  ' '  lu  June,  1549, 
Flacius  wrote  IMelanehthon :  '  As  little  as  I  could  wish  my  own 
destruction,  so  little  do  I  wish  that  of  your  Loci.'  And  Tilemanu 
Heshuss  said,  in  an  address:  'As  in  his  commentaries  on  the 
Scriptures  Philip  has  surpassed  all  other  writers  in  the  Church, 
so  in  his  Loci  has  he  surpassed  himself.'  Calvin  seems  to  have 
been  the  only  person  who  was  not  satisfied  with  Melanchthon's 
teaching  on  Predestination  and  Free-will."  * 

In  1559  IMelanehthon  wrote  to  his  Elector:  "During  the  life- 
time of  Luther  and  afterwards  I  rejected  those  Stoic  and  Man- 
ichaean  deliria  that  Luther  and  others  had  written,  namely,  that 
the  deeds,  good  and  evil,  in  all  men,  good  and  evil,  must  occur  as 
they  do.-  It  is  evident  that  such  speech  is  contrary  to  God's 
Word,  is  destructive  of  all  discipline  and  is  blasphemous  toward 
God. ' '  And  in  order  to  show  that  in  practice  Luther  had  aban- 
doned the  absoluteness  of  his  former  theory  of  Predestination,  he 
refers  to  his  (Luther's)  Trostscliriften  and  letters,  and  says: 
"I  and  others  in  his  presence  have  often  heard  him  comfort 
others  thus:  You  must  hold  to  the  promise,  which  is  universal, 
and  we  must  not  exclude  ourselves."  t 

In  regard  to  sin,  IMelanehthon  uttered  no  uncertain  sound.  In 
the  Loci  of  the  third  period  (1543-1559)  he  wrote  thus  of  orig- 
inal sin :  ' '  The  sin  of  origin  is  the  want  of  original  righteous- 
ness, that  is,  in  those  born  of  virile  seed  it  is  the  loss  of  light  in 
the  mind,  and  the  turning  of  the  will  away  from  God,  and  con- 
tumacy of  heart,  so  that  they  are  not  able  to  obey  the  law  of  God. 
On  account  of  this  corruption,  they  are  guilty,  and  are  the  chil- 
dren of  wrath,  that  is,  they  are  condemned  of  God,  unless  they 
shall  have  been  pardoned.  If  anyone  wishes  to  add  that  also 
they  are  born  guilty  on  account  of  Adam's  fall,  I  do  not  object." 
With  Melanchthon,  sin  is  not  merely  something  negative.  He 
describes  it  as  an  "  act  that  fights  against  the  law  of  God, ' '  that 
"makes  guilty  of  eternal  wrath."  It  is  "enmity  against  God." 
It  is  described  as  "a  disorder  of  all  the  appetites,"  as  "ipsum 
vitium  born  with  us."  "In  general  sin  is  vitium  perpetuum  or 
factum  fighting  with  the  law  of  God."  %  He  also  revives  the  old 
Augustinian  idea  of  concupiscence  as  an  active  evil  in  man,  and 
sets  it  over  against  the  scholastic  idea  of  concupiscence  as  a  mere 
weakness  in  man,  and  not  sin.    The  fact  is,  in  some  of  his  private 

*  Dr.   Carl   Schmidt,  Philipp  Melanchthon,  p.   574. 

tC  R.  9:  766-9. 

t  r.  Tr.  21  :  n7S;  0.  R.  1l':  437. 


THE    AXTHKOl'OLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  341 

writings  Melanchthon  defines  and  describes  original  sin  in 
stronger  and  more  positive  terms  than  he  defines  and  describes 
it  either  in  the  Confession  or  in  the  Apology. 

Under  the  heading,  Of  Actual  Sins,  we  read  the  following: 
"Original  sin  is,  as  I  have  said,  darkness  in  the  mind,  aversion 
of  the  will  from  God,  contumacy  of  heart  against  God.  These 
evils  are  not  called  actions;  but  from  these  arise  actual  sins 
within  and'  without:  In  the  mind  constant  doubts  and  blas- 
phemies; in  the  will  security  and  neglect,  distrust  of  God,  ad- 
miration of  self,  preferring  our  own  life  and  will  to  the  command 
of  God,  and  a  greatly  confused  mass  of  vicious  affections."  In 
describing  the  seat  of  sin  he  says:  "These  innate  evils,  defects, 
and  depraved  inclinations,  are  not  only  in  the  body,  but  they  are 
at  the  same  time  in  the  soul  and  in  the  body,  namely,  in  the  cogni- 
tive faculty,  vanity,  darkness,  and  doubts  in  regard  to  God.  In 
the  appetent  faculty  and  in  the  heart  there  exist  no  good  inclina- 
tions, nor  the  love  of  God,  nor  the  fear  of  God,  but  there  exist  de- 
praved inclinations,  the  improper  love  of  ourselves,  pride,  many 
sinful  appetites,  that  is,  the  entire  man  (totus  homo),  soul  and 
bod}',  since  the  Fall,  has  ceased  to  be  the  abode  of  God,  and  since 
God  does  not  shine  in  man,  there  is  in  him  darkness  and  manifold 
disorder. ' '  * 

And  in  treating  the  subject  of  Free-will  {De  Libero  Arhitrio) 
at  AVorms,  in  1557,  he  wrote  officially :  "In  regard  to  this  sub- 
ject our  Article  in  the  Confession  delivered  at  Augsburg  is  full 
and  clear,  and  it  was  not  then  rejected.  And  we  judge  that  our 
explanation  is  profitable  for  discipline  and  for  the  Church  when 
we  speak  of  the  liberty  that  remains  in  the  Will,  namely,  that  of 
regulating  the  external  conduct,  and  that  the  Will  of  man  with- 
out the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  able  to  produce  the  internal  affections 
commanded  by  God,  such  as  the  fear  of  God,  faith,  the  love  of 
God,  constancy  and  strength  in  confession,  chastity  of  heart,  and 
like  internal  virtues,  which  are  and  are  called  the  fruits  of  the 
Spirit.  By  means  of  this  our  distinction  both  the  Pelagians  and 
the  INIanichaeans  are  refuted,  and  discipline  is  confirmed,  and  at 
the  same  time  the  benefits  of  the  Sou  of  God,  as  promised  in  the 
Gospel,  are  shown. 

"We  say  that  the  unregenerate  ought  and  can  regulate  their 
external  movements  so  that  the  external  conduct  can  agree  with 
the  law  of  God.  It  is  of  external  actions  that  it  is  said :  The  law 
is  given  for  the  ungodly.    But  we  affirm  that  this  external  dis- 

^  From  the   Explicatio   SymhoU  Nicaeni    (15.57),   C.  E.,   23:    403. 


342  THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTHOVERSV. 

cipline  caunot  satisfy  the  law  of  God,  and  it  is  not  the  righteous- 
ness that  pleases  God,  nor  does  it  merit  the  remission  of  sins, 
nor  is  it  that  by  which  a  person  is  righteous  before  God,  that  is, 
is  accepted,  but  for  other  reasons,  of  which  we  shall  speak  at  the 
proper  place,  it  is  necessary. ' '  * 

Thus  by  the  year  1557,  yea,  even  before  that  time,  the  Luth- 
eran Church  had  already  passed  beyond  its  formative  period.  It 
was  established.  It  had  an  organized  and  a  legally  recognized 
existence  in  the  Holy  Roman  Empire  of  the  German  Nation.  It 
had  its  distinctive  Confessions,  which  had  been  officially  affirmed 
and  reaffirmed.  It  had  commentaries  on  the  Scriptures,  and  it 
had  a  handbook  of  theology  (the  Loci  Communes),  which  had 
almost  the  authority  of  a  confession  of  faith  and  was  often  called 
opus  sacrosanchim.  Its  doctrine  of  Antliropologx)  (Free-Avill  and 
Sin)  were  as  clearly  defined  and  as  universally  accepted  by  its 
members  as  was  its  doctrine  of  the  Person  and  Work  of  Christ  as 
set  forth  in  Article  III.  of  the  Confession.  But  in  the  doctrine  of 
Free-will  the  harsh  expressions  employed  by  Luther  in  contro- 
versy do  not  appear.  Luther  did  not  make  any  part  of  the  De 
Servo  jWhitrio,  nor  any  part  of  the  Commentary  on  the  ninetieth 
Psalm,  confessional,  nor  is  he  known  to  have  uttered  one  word  of 
complaint  when  Melanchthon  repudiated  his  own  earlier  Necessi- 
tarianism, and  from  1527  on  affirmed  tlie  essential  freedom  of 
man. 

On  the  contrary,  after  the  controversy  with  Erasnms,  as  is 
conceded,  Luther  modified  his  earlier  views  in  the  interest  of  prac- 
tical Christianity.  More  and  more  he  emphasized  the  Deus  Rc- 
velatus,  and  the  Vocatio  Universalis,  and  the  Article  of  Justifica- 
tion by  Faith  alone,  so  that  in  his  riper  and  better  years  his 
theology  is  represented  preeminently  by  the  three  principles  just 
now  named  above.  His  earlier  doctrine  of  Free-will  is  practically 
supplanted  by  Avhat  ]\Telanchthon,  in  the  interest  of  the  ethical 
content  of  conversion  and  of  the  religious  life,  has  taught  on 
these  subjects.  His  own  earlier  teaching  on  the  subject  of  Free- 
will, as  already  shown,  though  not  formally  revoked  by  hinu  had 
been  allowed  to  fall  into  the  background — rather  to  be  superseded 
by  what  Melanchthon  taught  fi'om  the  chair  and  published  in 
his  many  opinions  and  commentaries,  and  in  his  more  formal 
treatises.  And  for  proof  of  this,  we  have  only  to  refer  to  official 
tt'stimony  given  by  his  pupils  in  the  Pomeranian  Synod  of  1578. 

*  C.   E.  9:  339. 


TIIK    ANTHliOPOI.OGICAL    COXTROVKHSY.  343 

and  to  a  long-  letter  written  by  David  Chytraeus  to  the  Witten- 
berg theologians  in  the  year  1595. 

The  former  testify  as  follows:  "The  Opinion  of  the  coopera- 
tion of  man's  Free-will  in  spiritual  things  by  his  own  natural 
powers,  which  Illyricus  (Flacius)  and  his  followers  have,  in  a 
way  that  causes  distrust,  charged  against  ^lelanchthon's  Loci 
and  against  the  passage  from  Chrysostom :  God  draws,  but  draws 
him  who  is  willing ;  and  the  passage  from  Melanchthon :  In  the 
struggle  of  conversion  the  hianan  Will  is  not  absolutely  inactive, 
and  which  opinion  is  now  presented  in  the  revised  Book  of  Con- 
cord, which  has  been  laid  before  us  for  subscription — of  such 
Opinion  we  never  heard  or  saw  a  trace  during  the  life-time  of 
Luther.  On  the  contrary,  Ave  heard  and  were  taught,  and  by  the 
Grace  of  God  have  taught  others,  that  in  conversion  to  (xod  man's 
Free-will  {liheruni  arbitrium)  can  and  does  do  nothing,  and  can 
contribute  nothing  of  itself  or  by  itself  to  his  conversion.  But 
also  that  in  conversion  to  God  man  is  not  absolutely  like  a  block 
or  a  stone.  But  when,  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word 
of  God,  he  is  moved  and  drawn  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  then,  as  a 
rational  being,  has  a  movement  in  himself.  By  carnal  wickedness 
he  can  oppose  God.  Or  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  without 
whose  grace  man  can  do  nothing  by  his  natural  powers,  he  can, 
by  using  his  Will,  submit  to  God  and  his  AVord,  and  can  become 
obedient  to  the  same,  though  there  is  much  weakness  in  the 
flesh." 

These  pupils  of  ^Melanchthon  further  testify  that  the  identical 
doctrine  by  iMelanchthon  in  the  Loci  of  1542-1  had  been  taught 
them  orally  by  iMelanchthon,  and  that  such  doctrine  had  not  only 
not  been  rejected  by  Luther,  but  had  been  approved  by  him  in 
his  discussion  of  the  passage  in  Paul:  "God  wills  all  men  to  be 
saved,"  and  in  the  Preface  to  the  first  volume  of  his  Latin  works. 
Also  they  say:  "We  have  always  found  and  read  in  the  said 
books  (the  Loci)  that  Melanchthon  steadfastly  and  with  great 
earnestness  and  zeal  taught  in  opposition  to  Pelagianism  and  the 
Papists,  that  num's  M^ill  without  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by 
his  own  natural  powers,  can  do  nothing  and  can  understand  noth- 
ing in  spiritual  matters  neither  by  willing,  nor  by  beginning,  nor 
by  doing,"  and  "Melanchthon  always  laid  down  the  fundamental 
principle :  The  Will  without  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  able  to  will. 
to  begin  or  to  effect  the  spiritual  conduct  which  God  requires." 
And  in  regard  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1540  they  testif}^: 
^'Luther  liimself,  for  more  than  six  vears  before  his  death,  had 


344  THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    COXTROVERSY. 

seen  this  more  fully  explained  changed  edition,  which  in  the 
year  1540  and  subsequently  was  employed  at  the  councils.  Had 
he  scented  in  it  such  corruption,  and  seduction,  sacramentarian- 
ism.  antinomian,  papistical  or  Pelagian  teaching,  he  would  not 
have  kept  silent  on  the  subject."  * 

And  Chytraeus,  who  had  been  a  pupil  under  Luther  and  JNlel- 
anchthon  at  Wittenberg,  in  his  letter  to  the  Wittenberg  theolo- 
gians, after  referring  to  Luther's  earlier  doctrine  of  Predestina- 
tion and  absolute  necessity,  and  his  denial  of  all  contingency  in 
human  affairs,  says:  "These  and  many  other  like  horrible  things, 
which  at  that  time  was  taught  in  j^our  lecture-room  as  oracles, 
but  which  now  are  retained  nowhere  except  in  the  schools  of  the 
Calvinists,  Philip,  our  common  Preceptor,  gradually  toned  down 
and  removed,  Avhilst  in  all  his  treatises  on  theology,  ethics,  phy- 
sics, and  dialectics,  he  refutes  those  absurd  opinions,  as  he  calls 
them,  about  the  Stoic  and  Manichaean  Necessity,  and  explains 
clearly  in  regard  to  the  powers  of  Free-will,  both  what  they  can 
do  alone,  and  what  they  cannot  do  except  they  be  converted  and 
changed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  passages  of  Scripture  quoted 
by  Luther  in  the  beginning  of  his  career  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing the  divine  Predestination  or  the  JManichaean  or  Stoic 
Necessity,  he  explains  very  differently,  and  everywhere  he  refutes 
the  principal  arguments,  and  that,  too,  while  Luther  was  still 
living.  And  especially  did  he  execrate  the  affirmations  of  some 
that  there  are  contradictory  wills  in  God,  one  of  the  revealed 
Ood,  another  of  the  hidden  God."  f 

The  same  is  also  affirmed  by  Planck,  who  says:  "He  (Luther) 
shows  most  unquestionably  that  he  was  conscious  of  a  change, 
since  he  looked  on  in  silence  while  IMelanchthon  was  propounding 
the  new  theory  under  his  eyes,  and  never  once  winked  a  sign  of 
disapproval. 

"Now  we  need  scarcely  ask  in  addition  how  the  other  theo- 
logians of  the  Protestant  party  may  have  felt  in  view  of  this 
theory.  Unquestionably,  IMelanchthon's  had  become  the  preva- 
lent one,  since  in  all  the  schools  of  the  party  theology  was  taught 
according  to  his  Hand-Book  (the  Loci).  Indeed,  very  many  ac- 
cepted it  from  him  Avithout  knowing  or  caring  that  they  had 
been  led  away  from  Luther's  theory,  since  it  required  more  pene- 

*  These  quotations  liave  all  been  taken  from  original  clocuments,  given 
by  J.  H.  Balthaser  in  Andere  Sammlung  sur  Pommerischen  Kirchen-Historie, 
pp.  116  et  seqq.     See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  1907,  pp.  309  et  seqq. 

t  Dav.  Chytraei  Epistolae,  pp.  1267  et  seqq.  The  Lutheran  Quarterly, 
July,  1905.  pp.  330  et  seqq. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    COXTKOVEKSY.  o45 

tration  and  learning  than  we  may  suppose  most  of  them  to  have 
had.  to  comprehend  the  difference  between  the  two  theories. 
There  may  have  been  many  who  still  clung-  wholly  to  the  genuine 
Augustinian  theory  as  it  had  been  impressed  upon  them  by  the 
writings  and  teachings  of  Luther,  but  they  were  very  little  trou- 
bled about  ]\relanchthon  's  having  set  up  or  wishing  to  set  up  an- 
other." * 

3.     Public  Transactions. 
And  as  proof  demonstrative  that  the  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig 
teaching  on  Free-will  had  not  excited  the  antagonism  of  the 
Flacianist   party,   we   note  the   following   personal   and   official 
transactions : 

1.  In  the  year  1556  Flacius  sought  "to  effect  a  friendly  agree- 
ment in  causa  acliaphoristica  between  the  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig 
theologians  and  those  who  had  written  against  them."  To  this 
end,  he  sent  to  Wittenberg  thirteen  "mild  propositions,"  as  he 
styled  his  articles  of  reconciliation. f  These  propositions  call  for 
the  common  condemnation 'of  the  Pope  as  Antichrist,  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Trent,  of  the  Augshurg  Interim,X  of  the  errors  of  the  Ana- 
baptists, of  Zwingli,  Major,  Schwenckfeld,  Osiander.  and  asks  for 
union  on  the  basis  of  the  Augsburg  Confession — of  course,  the 
Variata,  for  only  that  was  then  in  vogue — "as  a  brief  statement 
of  the  fundamental  difference  between  the  papal  and  Lutheran 
religions."  But  in  these  articles  not  one  word  is  said  on  the 
subject  of  Free-will.  Nor  is  there  the  remotest  intimation  that 
the  doctrine  of  Free-will  as  the  same  had  stood  in  the  Loci  for 
more  than  twenty  years,  and  as  it  liad  been  stated  in  the  Con- 
fessio  Saxonica  and  in  Melanchthon 's  numerous  treatises,  was  to 
be  considered,  or  was  in  any  sense  in  the  purview.  Proof  positive 
this  that  the  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  teaching  on  the  subject  of 
Free-will  had  not  yet  been  catalogued  as  a  heresy  by  Flacius. 

2.  In  January,  1557,  at  the  instance  of  Flacius  and  other 
IMagdeb'urg  theologians,  the  Superintendents,  respectively,  of 
Liibeck.  Hamburg,  Liineburg  and  Brunswick,  each  attended  by 
one  of  his  clergy,  suddenly  appeared  at  Wittenberg  with  eight 
articles  of  reconciliation,  prepared  in  the  main  by  Flacius  him- 
self, and  offered  themselves  as  "Mediators"  between  the  Magde- 

*  GeschicJite  der  Enisielxung,  etc.,  4:566.  The  reader  will  not  fail  to 
observe  the  perfect  agreement  between  Chytraeus  and  Planck  on  the  main 
subject,  viz.,  that  Melanchthon  had  changed  the  whole  course  of  doctrinal 
development  on  Anthropology. 

t  Given  by  Preger  in  Matthias  Flacius  Illyricus,  II.,  9-11. 

±  Melanchthon  had  ^•iolently  opposed  the  A^igsburg  Interim.  See  above, 
p.  .321,  and  Richard's  Philip  Melanchthon,  pp.  329  et  seqq. 


«/ 


346  THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTK'OVKRSV. 

burg  and  AVittenberg  theologians.  These  articles,  known  as  the 
Coswig  Articles,  demand  agreement  in  doctrine  according  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  and  name  the 
several  errors  and  corruptions  that  are  to  be  rejected.  But  the 
subject  of  Free-will  is  neither  named  nor  alluded  to. 

The  eight  articles  were  subsequently  revised  and  enlarged; 
more  errors  and  errorists  to  be  rejected  were  named,  but  not  one 
word  is  said  about  the  Wittenberg  teaching  on  Free-Avill.  ]\Iore- 
over,  in  the  documents  relating  to  these  negotiations,  consisting 
of  letters  and  explanations,  as  given  in  the  ^lelanchthon  Corpus 
Eeformatorunt,  IX.,  23-72,  there  is  no  intimation  that  Free-will 
has  been  or  is  a  subject  of  dispute  between  the  parties.  Also  in 
the  ]\lagdeburg  Confession,*  written  by  Flacius,  and  reaffirmed 
in  the  eight  articles  mentioned  above  as  still  the  faith  of  the 
Magdeburgers,  not  one  word  of  objection  is  found  to  any  ]\lel- 
anchthonian  teaching  on  Free-Avill,  nor  is  any  reference  made  to 
the  definition  of  Free-will  that  had  been  introduced  into  the  Loci 
i)i  1548. i     The  irresi.stible  conclusion,  then,  from  the  premises  is 

*  Found  in  Hortleder,  II.,  Bk.  4,  Cap.  5.  Sixteen  folio  pages.  Written 
in  1550. 

t  In  the  year  1548  Melanehthon,  after  discussing  tlie  subject  of  con- 
version, in  opposition  to  the  ' '  frenzies  of  the  Manlchaeans, ' '  and  in  refu- 
tation of  the  Enthusiasts,  who  "imagine  that  there  is  no  need  of  the  min- 
istry of  the  Gospel,"  says:  "Know  that  God  wills  to  convert  us  in  this 
very  manner,  when,  aroused  by  the  promise,  we  struggle  with  ourselves,  pray 
and  resist  our  distrust  and  other  vicious  affections. 

"Therefore  some  ancients  have  spoken  thus:  Liberum  arbiirium  in 
homine  fucultateni  r.s-.sr  applicnmli  sc  ad  grufiam,  id  est,  audit  pwmissionem 
ft  asseiitiri  conatar  et  abiicit  peccata  contra  coiiscientiam."  C.  R.  XXI., 
659,  When  the  controversy  on  Free-will  had  begun,  the  enemies  of  Melaneh- 
thon asserted  that  Melanehthon  had  taken  this  definition  from  Erasmus,  in 
the  sense  of  Erasmus,  \\hich  sense  Ijuther  had  powerfullj^  refused.  Acta 
Disput.  Vinar.,  1563,  p.  370.  But  the  Erasmian  and  the  Melanchthonian 
definitions  are  not  identical,  either  in  words  or  in  meaning.  Erasmus's 
verba  ipsissima  are  as  follows:  Porro  Liberum  Arbitrium  hoc  loco  sen- 
timus  vim  humaiuie  voluntatis  quo  se  possit  homo  apjilicare  ad  ea  quae  per- 
ducant  ad  aeternam  salutem,  aut  ab  iisdem  avertere.  Opera  IX.,  De  Libera 
Arbitrio,  p.  1215  et  seqq.  Luther's  interpretation  of  Erasmus's  definition 
is:  "Free-will,  according  to  Erasmus,  is  the  power  of  the  Wil]  which  is 
able  of  itself  to  will  or  not  to  will  the  word  and  work  of  God"  (Erl.  ed. 
Var.  Arg.,  7:  191-2),  which  is  not  the  meaning  of  Erasmus,  much  less  is 
it  the  meaning  of  Melanehthon  in  his  doctrine  of  Liberum  Arbitrium. 

When  Melanehthon 's  friends  asked  him  about  this  definition  at  the  Diet 
of  Worms,  in  1557.  he  replied  that  it  must  be  read  in  connection  with  the 
three  preceding  lines,  that  is,  it  must  be  applied  to  the  Arbitrium  Libera-  • 
turn,  an  explanation  which  satisfied  all.  See  Frank,  Die  Theologic  der  Con- 
eordienformel,  I.,  135,  198;  Herrlinger,  Theologie  Melanchtlions,  p.  92; 
The  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  January,  1904,  pp.  23,  24,  30.  Even  Jacob 
Andreae  was  satisfied  with  this  explanation,  though  he  thought  the  defini- 
tion was  ambiguous.  Gieseler  says,  that  when  Melanehthon 's  friends  asked 
him  about  this  definition  at  Worms,  he  "satisfied  tiiem  by  the  declaration 
that  he  meant  ralnnlaa  reiuita."  CJiureh  Jlistnrii.  IV.,  p.  444.  Even  Sel- 
neecer,    after    reciting    IMelanchthon 's    answer    to    Brentz,    savs:      "In    hoc 


THK    ANTHlioroLoiilCAL    l'()NTKC)\'i:i;sY.  347 

that  if  agreement  could  liave  been  reached  on  the  basis  of  the 
things  named  in  the  eight  articles,  the  article  of  Free-will,  as  the 
same  had  been  presented  in  the  Confession  and  Apology,  and  as 
it  had  been  more  fully  elaborated  in  the  Loci,  would  have  been 
satisfactory  to  Flacius  and  his  IMagdeburg  fellow-Lutherans. 
And  now  for  the  documentary  proof  of  this. 

3.     Scarcely  had  the  Superintendents  of  the  Lower  Saxon  cities 
left  Wittenberg,  than  two  eommissionei-s  arrived  from  the  Duke 
of  ^Mecklenburg,  bearing  a  Formula  of  Facific(ttio)i.  which  had 
been  prepared  at  the  request  of  Flacius,  who  for  a  long  time  had 
been  importuning  the  Duke  to  act  the  part  of  mediator  between 
him  and  jNlelanchthon.     These  articles,  eight  in  number,  treat  of 
Doctrine    in    General,    of    God    and    Christ,    of    Justification, 
of    the    Necessity    of    Good    Works,    of    the    Lord's    Supper, 
of  the    Efficacy    of    the    Word,    of    the    Freedom    of    the  Hu- 
man   Will,    of    Adiaphora.        Of    Doctrine    in     General,    the 
Formula    says:         "This    with    honest    heart    we  embrace    in 
that    sense    which    is    begotten    by    the    various    parts    of    the 
Scripture  when  compared  with  each  other,  and  which  is  expressed 
in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  the  Nicene  Creed,  the  Augsburs:  Confes- 
sion, the  Confession  and  Catechism  of  the  Reverend  Dr.  Luther, 
and  in  Philip 's  Loci  Commxuies. ' '  *    Here  we  see  Melanehthon  's 
Loci  catalogued  and  placed  side  by  side  with  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  with  the  Confession  and  Catechism  of  Luther.    There 
is  no  mistaking  the  significance  of  this  fact  in  the  premises  before 
us.    Hence  there  is  no  need  of  comment,  especially  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  when  the  Formula  comes  to  speak  of  the  Will  it  asserts 
the  essential  freedom  of  the  Will,   and  its  natural   ability  in 
ciL'ilibns,  in  language  almost  identical  with  that  found  in  the 

responsn  Brentim  acqiiievit.  Toin.  III.,  'iOn-T.  In  his  Hccifatioitcs  Alhiiutt 
(1582)  he  says  that  in  this  definition  Melanehthon  declared  that  "he  meant 
to  speak  de  libero  aiMtrio  libcmto,  sive  hominis  renati."  P.  331.  In  his 
teaching  on  Free-will  Melanehthon  never  taught  that  the  initiative  or  the 
causal  efficiency  is  from  man,  but  alone  from  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the 
Divine  Word.  It  is  the  Will  that  has  begun  to  be  liberated  that  strives  to 
assent  to  the  Divine  Promise.  Herrlinger,  Theologie  Melanchthons,  p.  92. 
Even  Selneecer,  in  his  ^-indication  of  Melanehthon  and  in  explication  of  his 
teaching  de  libero  arbitrio.  declares:  Tres  sunt  causae  conversionis,  etc. 
sed  non  pares  aut  aequales,  aut  simul  efficientes,  aut  synergae:  Una  tantuni 
est  eflfieiens  causa,  Spiritus  sanctus,  secunda  est  instrumentalis,  Verbum  et 
Sacramenta.  Tertia  est  subjectum,  in  quod  per  verbum  motu  suo,  operatione 
et  efficaeia  liberrime  agit  Spiritus  sanctus.  Fecitationes  Aliquot,  p.  331. 
Dated,  Leipzig,  Julv  16,  1581. 

*  See  the  Formula  in  C.  E.  IX.,  92-103.  See  Schiitz,  Vita  Dav.  Chytraet. 
Salig,  III.,  251.  The  Wittenbergers  believed  that  Flacius  himself  had 
written  the  Formula.  Flacius  says  that  he  had  only  in  a  general  way  re- 
quested articles  of  mediation,  but  that  he  did  not  know  how  the  Duke  had 
taken  up  the  matter.     Preger,  II.,  60.  note. 


348  THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  COXTKOVERSY. 

Avorks  of  Melanchthon :  and  then  it  says:  "Fourthly,  in  spir- 
itual actions,  in  the  knowledge  of  God,  in  faith,  in  worship,  in 
patience,  it  is  certain  that  the  human  Will  cannot  by  its  own 
powers  will  or  do  anything  except  God  himself  precede  by  his 
Word,  and  by  the  divine  afflatus  moving  and  influencing  wills  so 
that  they  assent  and  obey.  Fifthly,  after  this  moving  and  in- 
fluencing of  the  Will  has  been  made  from  above,  the  Will  of  man 
is  not  absolutely  passive,  but,  moved  and  assisted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  it  does  not  resist,  it  assents,  it  obeys  God  and  sunergos 
esti,  as  Paul  says :  When  Joseph  retains  the  grace  of  God  and 
abstains  from  his  Master's  wife,  his  will  is  not  absolutely  passive, 
but,  incited  and  assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  resists  the  temp- 
tation, and  restrains  his  external  members.  When  David  heard 
the  consolation,  The  Lord  hath  removed  thy  sins,  his  will  was 
not  absolutely  inactive,  but  it  assented,  and  resisted  distrust  and 
doubt  and  struggled  with  itself. 

' '  This  simple  and  true  doctrine  de  synergia  of  the  human  Will 
we  embrace  with  consenting  minds  as  the  same  is  set  forth  in  the 
Locus  de  Lihero  Arhitrio,  and  elsewhere  by  ours."  * 

The  Ducal  Formula  was  rejected  by  Melanchthon,  because  for 
him  to  have  accepted  it  as  a  whole  would  have  been  for  him  to 
have  cut  his  throat,  as  he  wrote  the  Duke.  But  the  commission- 
ers, now  leaving  Wittenberg,  went,  as  they  had  been  instructed 
to  do,  to  Magdeburg,  and  there  placed  the  Formula  before  Fla- 
cius  and  Wigand,  who  replied  the  next  day,  in  writing,  that 
"they  would  have  accepted  the  Formula,  had  it  been  accepted  by 
the  otlier  party,"  meaning  Melanchthon  and  the  other  Witten- 
bergers.f 

Nothing  that  Melanchthon  ever  published  is  so  out-and-out 
"synergistic"  as  are  the  three  paragraphs  quoted  above  from 
the  Ducal  Formula  Pacificationis,  and  yet  Flacius  and  Wigand 
Avere  Avilling  to  sign  the  Formula,  as  the  Duke  of  Mecklenburg 
had  signed  it  with  his  own  hand,$  after  it  had  been  composed  at 
his  command  by  the  theological  Faculty  of  Rostock  together  with 
the  civil  counsellors, §  by  Avhich  transaction  it  became  a  Confes- 
sion of  the  INTecklenburg  Lutheran  Church ! 

*  C.  E.  IX.,  100-101.  These  articles  are  dated:  Calend.  Feb.  Anno.  1557. 
Hence  the  reference  to  the  Loci  includes  the  edition  of  1548  and  its  suc- 
cessors. 

t  Report  of  the  Ducal  commissioners.  C.  E.  IX.,  106-8.  Preger,  II., 
60,  note,  refers  to  and  employs  this  Eeport.  Dr.  Carl  Schmidt  notes  the 
fact  reported,  and  says:  "The  articles  on  the  Lord's  Supper  and  Free-will 
hold  fast  to  Melanchthon  's  way  of  teaching. ' '    PMlipp  Melanchthon,  p.  599. 

%  C.  R.  IX.,  10,8.    Salig,  III.,  251. 

§  Schiitz,  Viia  Bar.  Chyiraei.  I.,  150.    Preger,  II.,  60. 


THK    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVEUSY.  349 

4.  At  the  Diet  in  Worms,  in  1557,  the  Flacianists  ask  all  the 
Lutheran  theologians  present  to  join  them  in  "the  rejection  of 
all  sects  and  false  doctrines  in  specie  and  by  name,  as  those  of 
Zwingli,  Osiander,  Major,  the  Adiaphorists  and  others. ' '  *  But 
in  the  long  Protestatio  not  one  word  is  said  about  any  false  teach- 
ing on  Free-will  among  the  Lutherans.  And  that  this  was  not 
accidental  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  when  Strigel,  who  had 
signed  the  Protestatio  at  Worms,  inquired  again  and  again  in 
the  Weimar  Disputation,  August,  1560,  why  silence  had  been  so 
long  maintained  on  this  subject  of  Free-will,  and  why  it  had  not 
been  brought  up  at  Worms  and  included  in  the  Protestatio,  he 
was  answered  never  a  word.f  Proof  positive  this  that  ]\Ielaneh- 
thon  's  doctrine  of  Free-will  had  not  become  a  quaestio  vexata  in 
the  Lutheran  Church,  and  that  even  at  Jena,  where  Flacius  was 
at  that  time,  it  was  not  called  "a  heresy,"  as  afterwards  it  was 
called  by  the  Flacianists.  At  that  very  time  Strigel,  w^ho  had  been 
a  student  at  Wittenberg,  was  teaching  the  Melanchthon  doctrine 
of  Free-will  at  Jena. 

After  the  Jena-Weimar  theologians  had  withdrawn  from 
Worms,  because  the  other  Lutheran  theologians  present  would 
not  join  them  in  their  Protestatio,  the  Lutheran  theologians  re- 
maining at  Worms,  and  representing  churches  from  Pomerania 
to  Wiirtemberg  and  Strassburg,  united  in  a  Declaratio,%  in  which 
they  set  forth  that  they  do  not  change  the  doctrine  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  and  will  not  change  it,  and  that  there  is  among 
them  no  difference  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession: 
and  both  Brentz  and  IMelanchthon  testify  that  there  is  absolute 
harmony  between  them  in  doctrina  et  dogmatihus.^ 

Now,  bringing  together  the  facts  covering  the  period  from  1527 
to  the  close  of  1557,  we  find : 

1.  That  beginning  Avith  the  year  1527,  Melanchthon  materi- 
ally modified  the  harsh  doctrine  of  Free-will,  which  earlier  had 
been  oracularly  taught  by  himself  and  Luther  in  the  University 
of  Wittenberg. 

2.  That  Luther  is  not  known  to  have  expressed  himself  in 

^  C.  E.  IX.,  285. 

■f  Acta  Disput.  Tiaar.  (1563),  p.  38.  Strigel  saiil:  Miror  me  hac  ma- 
teria sic  iirgeri,  cum  ante  tres  annos  Vuormaeiae  nulla  sit  facta  hujus  con- 
troversiae  meutio,  cum  de  aliis  nuilta  severa  mandata  traderentur. 

t  C.  R.  IX.,  389  et  seqq. 

§  C.  R.  IX.  311;  319;  452;  457.  Pressel's  Anecdota  Breniiana,  p.  443. 
It  was  here  at  Worms  that  ^Melanchthon  confessed  himself  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  the  Apology  and  the  SchmalkaLl  Articles.  C.  R.  IX.  365  et 
seqq. 


350  THE    ANTHR()P()LO(;iCAL    CONTKOVERSY. 

opposition  to  ]\Ielaiichthon 's  later  teaching  on  the  subject  of 
Free-will.  That  on  the  contrary,  by  his  unbroken  silence,  in 
regard  to  Melanchthon's  teaching  on  this  subject,  and  by  his 
repeated  sweeping  endorsement  and  praise  of  the  Loci — even  the 
later  editions — he  practically  placed  his  imprimatur  on  that 
teaching. 

3.  That  Melanchthon  knew  himself  to  be  in  practical  har- 
mony with  Luther  in  regard  to  Predestination  and  Free-will. 

4.  That  ^lelanchthon 's  Loci,  and  consequently  his  doctrine  of 
Free-will,  was  taught  in  all  the  German  Universities  that  had 
received  the  Reformation ;  and  that  the  theologians  had  accepted 
it  or  had  at  least  acquiesced  in  it.  (See  on  a  preceding  page  the 
words  of  approval  expressed  by  Flacius  and  Ileshuss). 

5.  That  the  doctrine  of  Free-will  played  no  part  among  the 
Lutheran  theologians  in  the  transactions  at  Worms  in  1557,  as  it 
had  played  no  part  in  the  peace  negotiations  between  Flacius 
and  Melanchthon,  except  in  the  ^Mecklenburg  Formula  Pacifica- 
tion lis  as  noted  above. 

6.  That  IMelanchthon  tauglit  that  the  Will  is  free  in  cirili- 
hus,  but  that  in  spiritual ihns  it  is  absolutely  unable  by  its  natural 
powers  to  do  anything  acceptable  to  God. 

7.  That  Melanchthon  taught  that  the  Will,  when  assisted  and 
urged  by  the  Holy  Spirit  acting  through  the  Word,  can  assent  to 
the  promise  of  Christ  and  can  resist  its  own  infirmity.  Though 
such  assent  and  resistance  have  absolutely  no  justifying  merit, 
and  are  in  no  sense  a  ground  of  pardon,  since  we  are  justified 
by  faith  alone,  "for  the  sake  of  Christ." 

8.  That  in  setting  forth  the  doctrine  of  Conversion,  ]\Iel- 
anchthon  begins  with  the  Divine  Word  as  the  instrumental 
cause,  and  then  proceeds  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  whom  he  names 
"the  efficient  cause."  and  ends  with  the  Will,  which  is  a  cause 
only  when  and  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  potentiated  and  moved 
by  the  divine  efficiency. 

9.  That  in  the  older  confessional  teaching  of  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  in  the  Loci  of  Melanchthon  (1535-1543,  1543-1559) 
Avhich  had  almost  the  authority  and  influence  of  a  confession  of 
faith,  it  is  neither  said  nor  intimated  nor  implied,  that  in  con- 
version and  in  conceiving  faith,  man  is  ahsohitely  passive,  nor  is 
it  said  nor  intimated  that  in  relation  to  conversion,  man  is  a 
block,  a  stone,  yea,  "is  much  worse  than  a  stone." 

These  nine  propositions  sum  uj)  the  Lutheran  teaching  on 
Aiithropolof/!/.  from  the  year  1527  Ui  the  close  of  the  year  1557, 


THE    AXTHK0P()I.0(t1CAL    CdXTKOVERSY.  o51 

though  in  the  year  1550,  when  Melanehthon  sent  some  theses  to 
Pfeffinger  of  Leipzig  on  Free-will,  or  rather  on  the  proposition 
that  God  does  not  operate  Avith  man  as  with  a  clod,*  Flacius 
attacked  him,  and  a  certain  Flacianist  republished,  either  at 
]\Iagdeburg  or  at  Jena,  an  edition  of  the  Loci  of  1522,  in  order 
to  set  the  author  in  contradiction  with  himself,!  thus  showing 
that  Flacius  and  others  who  regarded  themselves  as  Lutherans, 
were  absolute  determinists.  Melanehthon  published  no  reply  to 
"the  stoics,"  as  he  called  those  men,  "who  are  now  trying  to 
revive  the  absurdities  about  Fate."  though  he  had  intended  to 
make  reply. 

4.     TJic  Controversij  on  Free-will. 

By  Free-will  (Liherum  Arbitrium)  is  meant,  according  to 
?.Ielanchthon,  "the  Mind  and  the  Will  conjoined."  t  Generally 
the  controversy  on  this  subject  is  called  the  Synergistic  Contro- 
versy, but  as  Synergism,  Synergists,  Synergistic,  are  terms  of 
reproach  invented  by  Flacius  and  his  followers,  it  is  not  fair  to 
the  other  side  to  use  them  in  describing  this  controversy,  especi- 
ally as  the  other  side,  the  Philippists,  repudiated  the  essential 
things  which  the  Flacianists  charged  in  their  use  of  these  words, 
namely,  that  in  conversion,  according  to  the  Philippists,  the  Will 
is  an  "efficient  cause,"  and  that  by  its  own  native  power  it  can 
assent  to  the  promise  and  can  cooperate  with  divine  grace. 

The  controversy  came  about  in  the  following  manner:  In  the 
\'ear  1555,  Dr.  John  Pfeffingei-,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Leipzig, 
published  a  small  book  entitled:  Qnacstiones  Qitinejue,  ele  Lih- 
ertate  Voluntatis  JIumanae,  propositae  in  disputatione  ordi- 
naria.  In  the  first  question  he  asks  whether  there  is  liberty  in  the 
human  AVill  to  perform  external  righteousness,  such  as  to  abstain 
from  murder,  theft,  and  the  like  crimes.  He  answers  the  question 
in  the  affirmative.  He  then  says:  "When  it  is  asked  whether 
and  to  what  extent  the  Will  is  able  to  obey  the  law  of  God,  let 
it  be  replied  truly  and  without  qualification  that  human  nature 
is  not  able  to  satisfy  the  law  of  God,  because  of  the  depravity 
born  in  us,  since  the  law  of  God  requires  not  only  external  obedi- 
ence, but  also  internal  cleanness  and  purity  of  heart,  and  com- 
plete and  perfect  obedience. 

"It  is  certain  that  men  do  not  have  the  freedom  to  get  rid 
of  this  depravity  that  is  born  with  us,  just  as  they  do  not  have 

"  C.  E.  IX.  555.    Salig,  I.,  648. 
t  C.  E.  XXI.  70. 

t  C.  E.  XXI.  65.3.  ' '  Voeantiu-  autem  liberum  arbitrium  Mens  et  Vo- 
luntas conjunctac. " 


352  THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

the  power  to  get  rid  of  death. ' '  To  substantiate  this  proposition, 
he  appeals  to  Romans  8,  and  to  the  words  of  Christ:  "Thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all  thy 
mind."  He  then  continues:  "When  inquiry  is  made  about  spir- 
itual actions,  it  is  rightly  answered  that  the  human  "Will  does  not 
have  such  liberty  as  to  be  able  to  perform  spiritual  deeds  without 
the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit" — [Which  is  the  very  language 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  Article  XVIII.]. 

"We  must  not  resist  the  Holy  Spirit  when  he  moves  our  minds, 
but  we  must  assent  to  him.  For  in  this  way  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
accepted  by  those  who  seek,  that  is,  by  those  who  do  not  spurn, 
do  not  resist,  but  with  groaning  seek  assistance.  In  Acts  it  is 
said :  He  gave  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  who  obey  him. ' ' 

Then,  while  on  the  one  hand  Pfeffinger  declares  that  the  vir- 
tues which  agree  with  the  law  of  God  cannot  be  performed  with- 
out the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  affirms  on  the  other 
hand:  "Nevertheless,  the  Will  is  not  inactive,  nor  is  it  like  a 
statue,  but  three  acting  causes  concur,  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
operates  through  the  Word  of  God,  the  mind  thinking,  and  the 
Will  not  resisting,  but  in  some  sense  obeying  the  Holy  Spirit, 
now  operating,  and  by  earnestly  seeking  thfe  assistance  of  God, 
as  is  said  in  Mark  9  :  Lord,  I  believe. 

' '  Hence,  some  assent  or  apprehension  on  our  part  must  concur, 
when  now  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  have  illumined  the  mind,  the 
Will,  the  heart.  Hence,  Basil  says:  Only  will,  and  God  antici- 
pates. And  Chrysostom :  He  draws,  but  he  draws  only  him  who 
is  willing.  And  Augustine  says :  He  assists  those  who  receive  the 
gift  of  the  call  with  becoming  piety,  and  as  far  as  in  man  lies, 
conserve  the  gift  of  God.  And  again :  When  grace  precedes,  the 
Will  follows." 

Then  Pfeffinger  denies  that  the  Will  is  like  a  stone,  a  statue, 
and  declares  that  it  is  not  inactive  in  conversion.  "If  the  Will 
were  inactive,  there  would  be  no  difference  between  the  pious  and 
the  impious,  or  between  the  elect  and  the  damned,  between  a  Saul 
and  a  David,  between  a  Judas  and  a  Paul. 

' '  Some  persons  vociferate  that  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  weakened  and  diminished  if  even  the  least  bit  be  attributed  to 
the  human  Will.  Though  this  argument  may  appear  specious 
atid  plausible,  yet  pious  minds  know  that  by  this  our  doctrine,  ac- 
cording to  which  we  allow  some  synergia  to  our  Will,  that  is, 
some  assent,  some  apprehension,  absolutely  nothing  is  taken  away 
from  the  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.    We  affirm  that  the  first 


THE    ANTIIKOI'OLOGICAL    CONTHOVKHSY.  353 

parts  must  be  given  and  attributed  to  Ilim,  since  he  first  and 
primarily  through  the  Word  or  the  voice  of  the  Gospel,  moves 
hearts  to  believe,  to  whom  we  ought  to  assent,  as  far  as  in  us 
lies,  and  we  ought  not  to  resist  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  we  ought  to 
submit  to  the  Word,  as  Christ  says :  Whosoever  hath  heard  of  the 
Father,  and  learned,  cometh  to  me,  etc.  Nor  does  our  doctrine 
contain  anything  opposed  to  the  words  of  Paul:  Faith  is  the 
gift  of  God.  For  we  are  justified,  not  on  account  of  our  quality 
or  worthiness,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  merit  of  Christ,  which  we 
lay  hold  on  by  faith,  which  faith  or  confidence  the  Spirit  kindles 
in  us  when  we  do  not  resist,  but  consent  and  try  to  obey. ' ' 

We  thus  see  that  Pfeffinger  teaches  a  doctrine  of  Free-will 
that  harmonizes  perfectly  with  the  teaching  of  Melanchthon  on 
the  same  subject,  and  so  confident  is  he  of  such  harmony,  that  he 
directs  those  who  desire  further  information*  on  the  subject  to 
Melanchthon "s  Loci.  That  is,  Pfeffinger,  like  Melanchthon 
attributes  no  causa  cfficiens,  no  causa  meritoria,  to  the  action  of 
the  human  Will  in  attaining  salvation:  nor  is  it  said,  nor  inti- 
mated, nor  implied  anywhere  in  his  Quaestiones  Qiiinque  that 
man,  by  his  own  natural  powers,  assents  to  the  Word  o^  God, 
but  his  teaching,  both  by  expression  and  by  implication,  is  that 
man  has  the  power  to  assent  only  when  he  is  moved  and  assisted 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  in  no  sense  does  Pfeffinger  attribute  the 
initiative  to  the  human  Will,  nor  does  he  even  use  the  word  co- 
operate.  His  distinct  teaching  is  that  man  is  justified  by  faith 
for  the  sake  of  Christ,  whose  merit  is  sieged  by  faith,  which  is 
the  gift  of  God. 

Pfeffinger  also  taught  in  this  tractate,  in  full  harmony  with 
Melanchthon,  that  "the  promise  of  grace  is  universal."  that  "all 
the  saved  are  chosen  for  the  sake  of  Christ,"  that  "the  cause  of 
election  and  of  justification  is  the  same."  namely,  "the  mercy 
of  God  reconciled  by  Christ,  who  was  made  an  ofi^ering  and  a 
propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  human  race. ' ' 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  there  is  not  one  word  that  justified 
the  allegation  that  Pfeffinger  taught,  that  man  by  his  own  natural 
powers  can  prepare  himself  for  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  that 
by  his  own  natural  powers  he  can  cooperate  in  his  conversion, 
or  is  able  to  work  spiritual  righteousness.  But  now,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  year  1558,  when  the  Jena  Gymnasium  was  about 
to  be  erected  into  a  university,*  in  the  interest  of  a  reactionary 

*  Gieseler,  Clmrch  History,  IV.,  443:  "As  if  for  the  t-onsecration  of 
the  New  Jena  I'uiversity. ' ' 

23 


^^ 


354  THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

Lutheranism,  Xieholas  von  Amsdorf  sent  forth  his  Puhlic  Con- 
fession of  the  Pure  Doctrine  of  the  Gospel  and  Confutation  of 
the  Fanatics  of  the  Present  Time* 

In  this  Confession  the  author  avows  his  firm  adherence  to  the 
Aiigsbnrg  Confession,  the  Apology  and  the  Sehmalkald  Articles, 
and  condemns  the  Schwenkfeldians,  the  Osiandrians,  Sacra- 
mentarians,  the  Adiaphorists,  and  the  proposition  that  good  works 
are  necessary  to  salvation  ;  saying,  finally :  "In  addition  to  these 
five,  there  are  yet  some  articles,  as  those  of  Dr.  Pfeffinger  and 
his  faction,  who  teach  and  contend  that  man  by  the  natural 
powers  of  his  Free-will  can  fit  and  prepare  himself  for  grace, 
so  that  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  be  given  him,  just  as  the  Sophists, 
Thomas,  Scotus  and  others  have  taught.  For  in  his  disputations 
on  Free-will,  which  he  delivered  two  years  ago,  he  concluded  such 
absolutely  shameless  and  absurd  teaching  with  about  the  follow- 
ing words:  Man  by  his  natiTral  powers  is  able  to  assent  to  the 
Word,  to  embrace  the  promise  and  to  cease  resistance  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Therefore  we  must  not  resist  the  Spirit,  but  assent  to 
him  when  he  moves  our  minds  and  hearts.  For  in  this  way 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  to  those  who  do  not  resist  him.  Haec 
ille,  si  reete  memini." 

Then,  after  giving  his  own  interpretation  and  refutation  of 
the  alleged  words  of  Pfeffinger,  he  says:  "To  the  Devil  with 
such  sophistry.  Pious  Christians  should  not  be  hounded  by  it. 
Some  people  act  towards  us  as  though  we  were  nothing  but 
clods  and  blocks." 

Pfeffinger  promptly  replied  in  a  small  book  bearing  the  title: 
Demonstratio  Manifesti  Mendacii.  As  a  part  of  his  refutation 
of  Amsdorf 's  mendacity  he  republished  his  Quaestiones  Quinque 
without  the  change  of  a  wotd,  and  denounces  Amsdorf 's  method 
of  quotation:  Haec  ille,  si  recte  memini,  as  "an  atrocious  accu- 
sation and  a  capital  crime,  because,  by  a  word  he  would  cut  the 
throat  of  a  brother  for  whom  Christ  died."  He  not  only  repu- 
diates Amsdorf 's  false  quotation,  but  he  repudiates  the  doctrine 
Avhich  Amsdorf  had  attributed  to  him.  He  not  only  states  in 
the  most  positive  manner  that  because  of  innate  sin  human  na- 
ture cannot  satisfy  the  law  of  God,  but  also:  "In  regard  to 
spiritual  things  man  is  not  so  free  or  so  strong  by  himself  that 
he  can  of  himself  awaken  or  excite  a  truly  spiritual  thought  or 
inclination  to  spiritual  deeds,  to  say  nothing  about  perfecting 
or  completing  the  same.  But  the  Holy  Spirit  must  precede  us 
"  Printed  in  Jena  bv  Thomas  Eebart. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  355 

in  everything,  mnst  awaken  and  excite  the  heart,  mind  and 
spirit  to  good  works,  which  is  properly  laying  the  first  stone. 
But  when  the  Holy  Spirit  does  this,  then  we  must  not  resist  him, 
but  must  obey,  and  call  upon  God,  and  pray  that  He  will  give 
us  His  Holy  Spirit,  which  then  indeed  is  done,  as  it  is  written. 
Acts  5 :  '  God  has  given  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  obey  Him. ' 
And  again :  The  Holy  Spirit  precedes  the  "Will  of  man  and  ex- 
cites it.  The  Will  of  man  must  not  resist  the  Holy  Spirit,  but 
must  follow  Him;  and  in  his  weakness  he  must  call  upon  God 
for  grace  and  assistance  that  he  may  be  redeemed  and  saved." 
He  closes  by  declaring  that  his  teaching  on  this  subject  is  in  har- 
mony with  the  Apostles ',  the  Nicene,  the  Athanasian  Creeds,  and 
with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology  and  the  Schmalkald 
Articles. 

Thus  Pfeffinger's  reply  contains  not  only  a  denial  of  Ams- 
dorf 's  allegations,  but  a  complete  refutation  of  Amsdorf 's  mani- 
festum  mendacium,  that  is,  his  falsification  of  what  was  taught 
in  Pfeffinger's  Quacstiones  Quinque. 

But  this  was  only  the  beginning  of  the  controversy  on  Free- 
will. Amsdorf  replied  to  Pfeffinger  the  next  year,  and  declared, 
among  other  things  equally  absurd,  that  "when  God  justifies  a 
man  he  acts  precisely  as  a  carver  does  when  he  makes  a  statue 
out  of  wood.  Out  of  a  sinner  who  loves  sin,  God  makes  a  man 
righteous  and  holy  without  any  participation  on  the  part  of  man. 
As  stone  and  wood  are  in  the  presence  of  the  artist,  so  is  the  Will 
of  man  in  the  presence  of  God."  *  That  is,  man  is  absolutely  pas- 
sive in  his  conversion.  But  meanwhile  Flacius,  who  was  now 
professor  of  theology  at  Jena,  entered  the  lists  and  carried  the 
fight  into  the  schools,  and  '  *  accused  the  entire  University  of  Wit- 
tenberg of  error."  He  affirms  in  his  Refutation  of  Pfeffinger's 
Propositions  on  Free-will,i  that  in  conversion  man  is  not  only 
absolutely  passive,  but  that  ' '  toward  God,  by  whom  he  is  made  a 
new  creature,  he  is  as  a  block  is  toward  the  statuary,  and  in  con- 
version holds  himself  adversative,  vel  repugnative  sen  Jiostiliter 
towards  the  operation  of  God. ' '  In  the  same  year  also  he  held  a 
disputation  on  Free-\\dll  in  Jena  for  two  days.  He  declares  that 
in  conversion  we  are  ' '  absolutely  passive ' '  and  are  ' '  only  as  sub- 
jectum  patiens, "  and  that  "we  only  bear  or  suffer  the  good  be- 
stowed by  God,  are  renewed,  fashioned,  and,  like  a  broken  vessel, 

*  Thomasius,  Dogmengeschichte,  2d  ed.,  IT.,  498.  Schmid-Hauck,  Dog- 
mengescTiicMe,  p.  381. 

^  Ada  Disjnit.  Vinar.,  ed.  Musaeus,  1563. 


856  THE    A.NTHROrOLOGICAL    COXTKOVKR.SV. 

are  repaired  by  our  potter,"  and  "we  are  pure  repugnative 
towards  the  Spirit  and  the  Word  of  God. "  "In  regard  to  spir- 
itual actions  man  is  absolutely  passive."  "The  person  who  is 
to  be  converted  holds  himself  toward  God  much  worse  than  does 
the  clay  toward  the  potter,  or  the  stone  or  the  block  toward  the 
statuary.  For  the  artist  chooses  only  good  and  suitable  material, 
such  as  permits  itself  to  be  conveniently  molded  and  shaped. 
But  we  are  the  worst  kind  of  material.  We  lust  against  the 
Spirit  and  resist  our  architect."  He  also  attacks  Melanchthon 's 
Loci  in  general,  and  especially  the  definition :  Liberum  Arhitrium 
in  liomine,  etc.  (see  p.  346)  :  says  that  "the  synergists  install  ab- 
solute heathen  theology,  and  corrupt  not  only  this  one  article  of 
Christian  doctrine,  but  also  that  of  original  sin,  of  justification, 
of  renovation,  of  new  obedience,"  and  calls  the  Wittenbergers 
scholastics.* 

But  lying  back  of  Amsdorf's  and  Flacius's  doctrine  of  Free- 
will is  their  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination.  The  former 
says :  ' '  God  has  only  one  mode  of  acting  with  all  creatures.  For 
he  acts  only  through  his  own  velle  and  nolle,  whether  he  do  that 
through  external  means,  or  without  means,  as  is  said :  He  spake 
and  it  was  done,  he  commanded  and  it  stood  fast.  Therefore  he 
acts  with  man  also  by  his  own  velle  and  nolle  and  dicere.  For 
the  will  of  man  and  the  heart  of  the  King  are  in  the  hand  of 
God,  and  he  inclines  them  as  he  will.  Wherefore  God  acts  with 
man  willing  and  understanding,  in  the  same  manner  as  he  does 
with  all  other  creatures,  with  a  stone  and  a  block,  solely  by  his 
own  velle  and  dicere.  ...  As  stones  and  blocks  are  in  the 
power  of  God,  so  also  in  the  same  Avay  the  will  and  the  under- 
standing of  man  are  in  the  will  of  God,  so  that  man  is  able  to  will 
and  choose  absolutely  nothing,  except  as  God  wills  and  speaks, 
whether  by  grace  or  by  wrath,  leaving  him  in  his  own  counsel, 
as  is  written  :  "I  have  let  them  go  according  to  the  desires  of  their 
own  hearts. ' '  He  also  holds  the  doctrine  of  particularistic  elec- 
tion, or  of  determination  on  the  part  of  God  who  shall  believe 
or  who  shall  not  believe:  "When  God  speaks  and  wills,  then 
man.  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  is  converted,  becomes  pious 
and  righteous.  When  God  wills  and  speaks,  then  man  believes 
the  Gospel  and  is  saved:  Because  God  Jias  mercy  on  whom  he 
will,  and  the  Spirit  operates  where  and  when  he  will."  y 

*  Acta  Bisput.  Vinar.,  pp.  272  et  scqq.,  pn.sshn. 

i  Sevteiitia  Nicolai  A  inbtidorfii,  in  Schliisselburg,  CafaJof/us  Hoeicticontm 
v.,  pp.  .546  et  seqq.  Pressel,  N,  Amsdorf,  pp.  134-140. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL   CONTROVEKSY.  857 

Flaciiis  expressed  himself  somewhat  cautiously  and  denied  that 
there  are  contradictor}^  wills  in  God.  Nevertheless,  when  pressed, 
he  declared  that  there  was  nothing  objectionable  in  Luther's  De 
Servo  Arhitrio.  In  his  Clavis  Scripturae,  under  the  words 
Praedestino  and  Praedestinatio,  he  also  expressed  himself  cau- 
tiously. In  the  Weiynar  Disputation  he  declared  that  it  was  in 
part  due  to  the  secret  judgment  of  God,  that  all  are  not  called, 
and  that  the  light  of  faith  is  not  kindled  in  all  hearts.  Frank 
calls  him  unqualifiedly:  Pradestinniianev,^  and  Planck  says 
that  "he  avowed  the  entire  Augustinian  system  of  Predestina- 
tion." t  Thomasius  holds  that  his  theory  leads  directly  to  Pre- 
destination and  gratia  particularis.%  Dorner  says  that  he  was  an 
absolute  predestinarian.§  Certain  it  is  that  after  the  Weimar 
Colloquy  the  Flacianists  expressed  themselves  openly  for  the 
doctrine  of  Predestination.  Wigand  denied  the  universality  of  the 
divine  election  and  call,  and  taught  gratia  particularis.  Hes- 
huss  declares  that  "God  does  not  will  that  all  men  shall  be  saved, 
for  God  does  not  elect  all,  or  draw  all  by  his  grace";  he  also  says 
that  "man  is  absolutely  passive  and  is  a  block  as  regards  spiritual 
actions. "  1 1 

In  general,  it  may  be  said  that  the  Flacianist  party  canonize 
Luther's  De  Servo  Arhitrio  and  make  that  book  and  certain  ex- 
tracts from  Luther's  writings  normative  and  final  in  the  premises, 
and  charge  it  as  a  capital  defect  that  their  opponents  have  not 
followed  the  De  Servo  Arhitrio.  They  also  heap  reproaches  upon 
their  opponents  and  call  them  opprobrious  names,  such  as  Syn- 
ergists, Adiaphorists,  Erasmians,  Pelagians,  Hypocrites.  Soph- 
ists, Sacrilegious,  Church  Robbers,  Philosophico-Theologians, 
Corrupters  of  Luther's  books.  Disturbers  of  the  Church,  and 
others  equally  unjust  and  offensive.  In  a  word,  it  must  in  justice 
to  the  facts  be  said  that  the  Flacianists  carried  on  a  campaign 
of  slander  and  defamation  against  their  opponents,  and  pro- 
claimed themselves  the  teachers  and  defenders  of  the  pure  Luth- 
eran doctrine. 

And  now  the  Flacianist  doctrine  of  Free-will  was  given  a 
symbolical  statement  in  the  Confutation-Book  of  1559  (see  p. 
328).    Here  it  is  declared:   "We  flee  also  and  detest  the  dogma 

*  Theologie  der  Concordienformel,  TV.,  404.     See  p.  252. 

t  Geschichte,  IV.,  703-7. 

t  Dogmengeschichte,  IT.,  507. 

§  Dorner,  Hist.  Prot.  Theol.,  I.,  372,  note.  Loofs,  Dogmengeschichte, 
Vierte  Auflage,  pp.  900,  901. 

!|  See  Schliisselburg.  V.,  216,  228,  316  et  seqq.  Luthardt,  Die  Lehre  vom 
Freien  Willen,  240  et  seqq. 


358  THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSY. 

of  those  who  sophistically  argue  that  the  mind  and  will  of  man 
are  cooperative,  or  are  a  concurring  and  cooperating  cause  in 
conversion  and  renewal."  This  their  doctrine,  they  say,  is  con- 
tained in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  Apology  and  in  the 
Schmalkald  Articles.  In  other  words,  the  Flacianists  interpret 
the  confessions  in  this  article  according  to  their  views  of  absolute 
predestination  as  their  fundamental  starting  point  derived  from 
an  overstrained  interpretation  of  the  De  Servo  Arbitrio,  drawing 
conclusions  from  that  book  which  even  Luther  himself  shrank 
from  drawing;  whereas  it  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  Melanch- 
thon  had  abandoned  both  his  own  and  Luther's  earlier  views  of 
Free-will  and  Predestination  some  years  before  he  wrote  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Apology. 

5.     The  Weimar  Disputation. 

The  Weimar  Confutation-Book  brought  on  a  crisis.  Vic- 
torine  Strigel  refused  to  sign  "the  Areopagitic  Book."  When 
Duke  John  Frederick  heard  of  this,  he  appeared  suddenly  in 
Jena  with  some  of  his  counsellors  and  summoned  the  theologians 
to  an  interview  in  the  castle.  Here  Strigel  and  Flacius  violently 
quarreled.  The  former  called  the  latter  the  architect  of  a  new 
theology,  sycophant,  an  enemy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The 
latter  kept  the  Weimar  court  apprised  of  all  that  the  former  did 
and  said.  And  now,  when  the  aged  Pastor  Andrew  Hiigel  refused 
to  read  and  explain  the  Confutation-Book  from  the  pulpit,  and 
Strigel  persisted  in  refusing  to  sign  it,  they  were  both  violently 
arrested  at  two  o'clock  in  the  morning,  ]\Iarch  27,  1559,  thrown 
into  prison  and  inhumanly  treated.* 

At  length,  upon  the  intercession  of  influential  Princes,  Strigel 
was  released  from  prison  and  sent  home,  but  upon  the  condition 
that  he  was  not  to  leave  his  house  until  he  had  answered  the 
accusations  which  had  been  brought  against  him.  And  now 
when  he  had  been  under  arrest  at  home  for  a  long  time,  the 
Flacianists,  "perceiving  that  errors  could  not  be  properly 
extirpated  by  the  violence  of  the  material  sword,  earnestly  im- 

*  Schlusselburg,  XIII.,  837.  Salig,  III..  481,  -482,  .587.  Otto,  De  Victorino 
Strigelio,  pp.  13,  45-47.  For  a  tolerably  full  account  of  the  arrest,  im- 
prisonment and  cruel  treatment  of  Strigel  and  Hiigel,  see  Voigt,  Brief- 
wechsel  der  herilhmtesten  Gelehrten,  etc.,  pp.  579  et  seqq.  It  was  a  brutal 
procedure,  and  justly  excited  the  indignation  of  the  people  and  of  many 
Princes.  Flacius  claims  that  the  arrest  was  made  without  his  counsel  or 
knowledge.  Schliisselburg,  XTII.,  837.  Nevertheless,  it  was  accomplished 
by  his  machinations.  Otto,  ut  supra.  49.  Salig,  III.,  481.  Voigt,  ut  supra, 
579,  580. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVKHSV.  359 

portunecl  the  Duke  to  permit  a  public  disputation,"  in  order 
that  the  matters  in  dispute  might  be  viewed  in  the  light  of  the 
Word  of  God.* 

Accordingly,  August  2-8,  1560,  a  disputation  was  held  at 
Weimar  in  the  presence  of  the  Saxon  Dukes,  their  counsellors, 
superintendents,  pastors  and  many  students  who  had  come  from 
the  Universities  of  Leipzig,  Wittenberg  and  Jena. 

Of  the  disputants  it  may  be  said  that  Strigel  was  analytical 
in  the  turn  of  his  mind,  was  thoroughly  trained  in  classical 
literature,  and  was  a  master  in  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle. 
Naturally",  then,  his  treatment  of  the  subject  in  hand  would  bear 
something  of  an  ethical  character.  Flacius  was  deficient  in 
classical  culture  and  despised  philosophy.  Naturally,  then,  his 
disputation  would  be  dogmatic  in  character.  As  a  result  of  the 
difference  in  mental  characteristics  and  in  equipment,  the  two 
naturally  drifted  farther  and  farther  apart  in  debate. 

Each  laid  down  certain  propositions  which  he  meant  to  defend 
in  the  disputation.  In  substance  those  of  Flacius  were  as  fol- 
lows: The  natural  man  by  the  power  of  Free-will  is  not  able 
to  do  anything  in  his  conversion,  or  to  cooperate  with  the  Holy 
Spirit;  corrupt  man  is,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  absolutely  dead. 
In  intellect,  will  and  affections  corrupt  man  "has  been  trans- 
formed into  the  image  of  Satan,  is  stamped  with  his  character 
and  is  utterly  infected  with  poison."  "God  alone  in  infinite 
mercy  through  the  Word,  the  sacraments  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
converts,  draws,  illumines  man,  gives  faith,  justifies,  re- 
news .  ,  .  cuts  off  the  stony  adamantine  heart."  Even  after 
conversion,  in  so  far  as  we  are  flesh  or  are  not  regenerated,  we 
resist  God  and  his  will.  The  papistical  synergy  of  the  human 
Will  in  man's  conversions  so  persistently  asserted  by  Strigel  in 
opposition  to  the  Confutation-Book^  can  in  no  sense  be  tolerated. 
Much  less  is  to  be  tolerated  the  doctrine  of  Bernard,  advo- 
cated by  Strigel,  that  liberty  ex  necessitate  agendi,  remains 
complete  in  fallen  man. 

The  following  in  substance  are  the  Propositions  of  Strigel : 
"He  deeply  deplores  the  sad  and  lamentable  depravity  of  human 
nature,  and  abhors  the  blasphemies  of  Pelagius  and  the  like. 
He  recognizes  with  grateful  heart  the  necessary  and  salutary 
benefits  which  God,  through  and  for  the  sake  of  Jesus  Christ, 
bestows    on    human    nature,    which    is    not    unlike    a    traveler 

*  Schliisselburg,  XIII..  837-S.  Otto,  ut  supra.  13,  14.  .51.  52.  Planck,  IV., 
599  et  seqq.,  604,  note  181. 


360  THE  AKTHROPOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSY. 

who  has  been  despoiled  and  wounded  by  robbers.  iNIan  by  his 
natural  powers,  without  the  Son  of  God,  the  Gospel  and  the 
Holy  Spirit,  cannot  begin  true  and  saving  conversion  to  God. 
So  long  as  the  will  resists,  there  can  be  no  conversion.  The 
voice  of  the  Son  of  God  makes  man  willing  to  submit.  There- 
fore in  conversion  these  three  things  concur :  The  Holy  Spirit 
who  moves  the  heart  by  the  divine  Word,  and  the  "Word  of  God 
made  the  subject  of  reflection,  either  when  it  is  heard,  or  is 
read,  or  in  pious  meditation,  and  the  Will  of  man  which  in 
some  sense,  through  fear  and  trembling,  assents  to  the  Divine 
Word,  and  at  the  same  time  seeks  assistance  from  him  who 
says:  'Come  unto  me  all  ye  who  are  weary  and  heavy  laden 
and  I  will  give  you  rest.'  "  This  doctrine  is  supported  by 
many  passages  of  Scripture.  This  doctrine,  though  the  subject 
of  much  controversy,  is  in  harmony  with  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  with  the  sounder  writers  of  antiquity. 

The  disputation  was  opened  by  Flacius.  His  principal  con- 
tention was  that  by  the  Fall,  man  has  lost  all  power  for  good, 
and  on  the  contrary  has  acquired  the  very  worst  powers  and 
is  born  only  unto  evil.  "The  image  of  God  created  in  man  has 
been  driven  out  by  the  true  and  lively  image  of  the  devil. 
Man  in  consequence  of  the  Fall  is  not  only  wounded,  but  is 
absolutely  dead,  extinguished,  killed,  as  regards  good  in  spiritual 
things."  "Since  the  Scripture  calls  man  dead,  evil  by  nature, 
I  inquire  whether  he  is  not  a  block  as  regards  the  good."  He 
denies  that  sin  is  an  accident,  and  declares  that  Luther  distinctly 
denies  that  it  is  an  accident.  He  affirms  that  sin  is  the  substance 
of  man.  In  conversion  there  is  no  synergy  on  the  part  of  man, 
but  in  conversion  man  is  absolutely  passive.  In  conversion  the 
Will  of  man  raves  and  gnashes.    Conversion  is  a  momentary  act. 

The  principal  contention  of  Strigel  was  that  sin  is  an  ac- 
cident in  man,  that  he  has  been  deeply  wounded  by  sin,  that  in 
conversion  the  Will  is  active  only  after  it  has  been  incited  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  ' '  The  Holy  Spirit  moves  hearts  to  assent. "  "  The 
Will  assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  able  in  some  sense  to  assent." 
He  declares  that  "the  efficient  cause  of  conversion  is  God." 
"God  draws,  converts.  The  Will  does  not  draw  itself,  but  is 
drawn  by  the  Word. "  ' '  The  Will  when  it  begins  to  be  converted 
is  not  inactive.".  He  maintains  that  to  will  belongs  to  the  Will, 
but  to  wall  that  which  is  good  is  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that 
in  conversion  there  is  an  order  of  cause  and  effect.  He  refuses 
to  limit  conversion  to  a  particular  moment  of  time. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  361 

The  difference  between  the  two  contentions  narrows  itself 
down  to  this :  Strigel  by  his  doctrine  of  the  essential  freedom 
of  the  Will  provides  in  man  a  point  of  contact  for  the  operation 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  through  the  Word.  Flaciiis  by  his  doc- 
trine of  sin  as  a  corruption  of  the  essence  of  man,  and  by  his 
doctrine  of  the  purely  passive  condition  of  man  in  conversion, 
his  likeness  to  a  stone,  or  block,  disalloAvs  any  real  point  of 
contact  and  presents  a  purely  mechanical  conception  of  doc- 
trine. Thus  the  fundamental  principles  being  so  different,  rec- 
onciliation would  be  impossible.  Hence  the  Disputation  closed 
without  any  decisive  consequence,  except  that  Strigel  was  re- 
stored to  his  professorship  in  which  he  continued  to  teach  es- 
sentially as  he  had  expressed  himself  in  the  Disputation.  It 
may  be  that  for  the  moment  he  did  not  lay  sufficient  weight  on 
the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  but  he  was  neither  a  Pelagian  nor 
a  semi-Pelagian.  His  merit  is  that  he  maintained  what  can 
never  be  successfully  denied,  namely,  that  there  is  a  personal 
and  a  psychological  element  in  conversion.  The  error  of  Flacius 
is  simply  monstrous,  in  that  it  makes  sin  the  very  substance 
of  man,  and  reduces  conversion  to  a  purely  natural  change  in 
man.* 

6.     The  Controversy  on  Free-will  Continued. 

In  ]\Iarch,  1562,  Strigel  made  what  is  known  as  his  third 
Declaration  on  Free-will.  In  this  Declaration  Strigel  "plainly 
and  clearly  confessed  that  by  Free-will  he  understood  in  har- 
mony with  Augustine  the  Will  itself,  and  that  this  Will,  after 
the  Fall,  retains  freedom  from  necessity  and  compulsion.  Other- 
wise there  would  be  no  Will  remaining.  That  God  in  and  by 
conversion  does  not  take  away  the  Will,  but  changes  it  and 
makes  it  better,  and  begins  and  perfects  the  good  in  it,  though 
he  does  not  apply  power,  but  out  of  an  unwilling  man  makes 
one  Avilling.  The  Will  is  passive  in  so  far  as  God  alone  works 
all  good,  but  active  in  so  far  as  the  Will  in  its  conversion  must 
be  present  and  must  consent  and  not  resist,  but  accept."  f 

The  Wiirtemberg  theologians,  Jacob  Andreae  and  Christo- 
pher Binder,  who  had  come  to  Weimar  to  examine  Strigel's 
Declaration,  asked  the  author  to  make  a  few  explanations,  and 

*  See  Disputatio  de  Originali  Feccato  et  Libera  Arbitrio,  etc.,  etc.  Edi- 
dit  Simon  Musaens.  1562  (1.563).  Salig,  III.,  587  et  seqq.  Thomasius,  Dog- 
men  geschichte,  II.,  498  et  seqq.  Seeberg,  Dogmengeschichte,  II.,  355  et 
seqq.     Loofs,  BogmengeschicMe,  Vierte  Auflage,  pp.  900-902. 

t  Salig,  III.,  882. 


362  THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSY. 

when  these  were  made,  they  expressed  themselves  entirely  satis- 
lied  with  the  Declaration,  and  signed  it. 

This  Declaration  affirms  that  man  has  no  efficacia  or  power  by 
which  he  can  think  or  will  the  things  acceptable  to  God.  Such 
efficacia  and  power  are  the  gift  and  work  of  God.  But  as 
regards  modus  agendi,  or  aptitude  and  capacity,  man  differs 
from  all  things  which  are  not  endowed  with  Mind  and  Will. 
Men  are  susceptible  of  the  divine  call  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
can  assent  to  the  Word  of  God  and  can  guard  the  precious 
treasure.  Its  position  is  supported  by  appeal  to  Gregory  Na- 
zianzen,  to  St.  Bernard's  Tractate  on  Grace  and  Free-iviU,  and 
takes  almost  the  entire  second  part  from  John  Brentz's  Apology, 
which  had  appeared  in  the  year  1556.  It  does  not  contain  a 
word  that  speaks  of  man  as  like  a  stone  or  a  block,  or  as  abso- 
lutely passive  in  conversion.  But  it  sums  up  the  whole  matter 
in  these  words :  ' '  Wherefore  the  human  AVill  after  the  Fall, 
considered  with  reference  to  the  power  of  doing,  is  the  slave 
and  captive  of  Satan.  But  if  you  consider  the  aptitude,  it  is 
not  a  stone,  or  a  block,  but  it  has  been  divinely  created  so  as 
to  be  susceptible  of  the  heavenly  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit. ' '  * 

And  yet  this  Declaration,  which  does  not  contain  a  trace  of 
Pelagianism,  which  does  not  in  any  sense  attribute  conversion 
to  the  natural  powers  of  man,  or  assign  assent  to  the  native 
Free-will  in  man,  and  which  was  approved  by  such  orthodox 
theologians  as  the  Wiirtembergers  were  supposed  to  be,  and 
which  in  its  more  important  and  essential  features  was  drawn 
from  St.  Bernard  and  Brentz,  did  not  satisfy  the  Flacianists. 
On  the  contrary  it  only  intensified  the  strife  and  widened  the 
breach  between  the  Flacianist  and  the  Philippists.  The  com- 
motion excited  by  it  is  thus  described  by  Salig:  "It  (Strigel's 
Declaration)  was  a  new  apple  of  discord  flung  among  the 
Thuringian  clergy,  some  of  whom  had  signed  it  at  Weimar,  as 
we  have  already  said.  The  Wiirtemberg  theologians,  as  medi- 
ators, had  declared  it  correct  and  orthodox.  The  Court  was 
entirely  satisfied  with  it,  and  if  it  be  regarded  as  to  its  funda- 
mental principles,  it  is  Christian  and  Scriptural,  and  to-day 
no  theologian  would  teach  differently  from  Strigel.  Let  the 
reader  turn  back  to  the  reflections  made  by  us  on  the  Weimar 
Colloquy.    The  situation  was  extremely  awkward.    The  Flacian- 

*  The  Declaration  in  Latin  is  given  by  Schlusselburg.  Y..  88-91;  Otto, 
ut  supra,  pp.  .59-61.  German  in  Salig,  III.",  884-6.  English  in  The  Lutheran 
Quarterly,  Oct.,  lOO.o,  pp.  4.54-6.  See  in  same  a  more  extended  account  of 
this  controversy. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  363 

ist  pastors,  about  sixty  in  number,  could  not  chide  the  Wiirtem- 
bergers  with  being  synergists;  and  yet  they  preached  and  de- 
claimed throughout  the  land  from  the  pulpits  against  Strigel's 
Declaration,  and  told  the  people  that  man  in  conversion  is  like 
a  block,  a  log,  and  is  converted  like  a  swine  in  spite  of  himself, 
repugnative*     And  in  order  to  place  their  cause  in  the  more 
favorable  light  they  declared  that  they  stood  on  Luther's  De 
Servo  Arhitrio,  and  that  what  it  contained  they  accepted  to  the 
last  letter  (which  is  done  by  very  few  Lutherans  to-day),  and 
that  the  party  that  accepted  Strigel's  Declaration  were  Eras- 
mians  and  Pelagians.     They  charged  the  Duke  and  his  counsel- 
lors and  the  Wiirtembergers  with  driving  Luther's  doctrine  into 
exile.    They  sought  help  from  the  exiled  theologians,  who  faith- 
fully assisted  them,  and  they  had  spies  in  all  Thuringia  who 
reported  to  them  all  that  transpired  in  the  country,  as  can  be 
seen    by   the   original   documents    which    are    often    quoted    in 
the  Acta.     Wigand  and  Judex,  who  were  then  at  ^Magdeburg, 
came  out  with  a  criticism  of  Strigel's  Declaration  almost  as  soon 
as   they   saw  it.      Then   followed   Dr.    Heshuss,    the   Mansfeld 
ministers,  Nicholas  von  Amsdorf,  Nicholas   Gallus,  Flacius  at 
Regensburg,    and    others,    who— some    from    misunderstanding, 
and  others  from  party-feeling,  because  they  thought  that  such 
great  men  as  Flacius,  Musaeus,  Wigand,  Judex,  could  not  be 
mistaken,  or  regarded  it  as  a  piece  of  unnecessary  strife— re- 
jected Strigel's  Declaration,  or  regarded  it  as  obscure,  ambigu- 
ous, heretical  and  contrary  to  Luther's  De  Servo  Arhitrio. 

"When  after  long  years  we  look  at  these  polemical  tractates, 
we  are  amazed  to  see  how  the  people  fought  like  blindfold  gladia- 
tors, and  how  their  hearts,  embittered  against  each  other  and 
enraged,  would  not  listen  to  reason,  nor  look  at  the  matter 
aright,  nor  by  explaining  terms  and  by  learning  the  truth, 
come  to  an  agreement  in  a  Christian  and  fraternal  manner,  not 
by  disputing  on  metaphysical  questions,  but  by  apprehending 
the  sole  operation  of  God's  grace  and  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  true  conversion  and  regeneration.  Of  the  two  parties 
one  was  necessarily  right,  because  in  things  that  are  contradict- 
ory it  was  thought  that  they  stood  in  antagonism  to  each  otlier. 
The  Wiirtembergers  were  orthodox,  and  the  exiled  theologians  ^ 
announced  themselves  as  extra-orthodox.  And  yet  the  Wiirtem- 
bergers had  declared  that  Strigel's  Declaration  accorded  with 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  with  the  Schmalkald  Articles  and 
*  Mnsaeus.    Acta   Di.<ipHt.    Vinar..    pp.    2.    3S2    et   passim. 


364  THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

even  with  the  Saxon  Confutation.  AVhat  conclusion  can  we  now 
come  to  in  regard  to  the  matter,  other  than  that  the  people  did 
not  know  what  they  were  fighting  about,  and  that  the  Flacians 
wantonly  urged  on  these  ungodly  contentions  from  a  quarrel- 
some disposition  and  from  an  insolent  spirit  ? "  * 

As  early  as  August  tAventieth  (1562)  the  Mansfeld  Minis- 
ters published  a  statement  in  which  they  say  that  the 
proposition  of  the  whole  case,  that  which  the  Holy  Scripture 
and  the  Holy  Luther  lay  down,  is  this :  "In  conversion  man 
is  absolutely  passive  and  in  no  sense  whatever  cooperates  by 
his  own  powers  with  Divine  Grace.""  They  say  further :  "Man 
contributes  not  more  in  his  conversion  than  an  infant  in  its 
mother's  womb  contributes  to  its  own  formation."  "He  is 
suhjectum  mere  patiens;  has  no  modus  agoidi"  and  "can  do 
no  more  in  conversion  than  a  block."  And  to  give  authority 
to  their  affirmations  they  say  :  ' '  This  doctrine  is  handed  down 
by  the  Holy  man  Luther  and  is  firmly  established  in  the 
Scriptures."  They  also  allege  it  as  a  special  fault  that  Strigel's 
Declaration  makes  no  mention  of  the  De  Servo  Arhitrio,  which 
is  to  be  accepted  as  the  standard  of  teaching  on  the  subject  of 
Free-will,  t 

And  Dr.  Heshuss  in  his  Confutation  of  the  Arguments  hij 
ivhich  the  Synergists  strive  to  defend  their  Error  in  regard  to 
tlte  Powers  of  the  Dead  Free-will,-\  declared  that  man  is  suh- 
jectum patiens,  and  is  absolutely  passive  in  conversion  and  is 
like  a  block,  and  only  suffers.  "He  does  not  assent,  nor  em- 
brace, nor  believe,  but  resists  so  long  as  he  is  not  converted, 
regenerated,  and  changed  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  "]\Ian  only 
suffers."  "The  Will  is  causa  materialis,  subjecta  et  patiens." 
"Subjectivum  passivum."  "Man  is  absolutely  passive,  and  is 
a  block  as  regards  spiritual  actions."  "Mind  and  Will  are  the 
material  in  which,  or  suhjectum  patiens,  in  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. "  f  He  makes  the  usual  appeal  to  Luther  as 
to  a  final  authority  in  the  matter  of  dispute,  and  he  brings  in 
the  "Synergists"  for  their  customary  share  of  misrepresenta- 
tion. 

We  now  go  back  a  little  and  then  forward.  In  the  year  1561 
the   Flacianists,    Musaeus,    Judex,   Wigand    and   Flacius    were 

*  Salig,  III.,  887  et  seqq.  The  author  gives  in  an  elaborate  note_  the 
documentary  proof  of  his  narrative  and  the  grounds  for  his  conclusions. 
See  Otto,  ut  supra,  pp.  65,  66;  Walch,  Einlcitung,  4  and  6,  pp.  100-101. 

t  Schliisselburg,  \.,  315  et  seqq.,  passim. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTRON'KRSV.  365 

dismissed  from  Jena,  as  already  noted,  on  account  of  their  tur- 
bulent spirit,  and  because  of  their  resistance  of  the  Duke's 
Caesaropapism.*  Their  places  were  filled  with  men  of  Mel- 
anchthoniau  views,  Freihub,  Salnmth  and  Selneeeer,  in  1565. f 
There  was  peace  now  between  the  theologians  of  the  different 
Saxon  universities.  But  when  Duke  John  William  took  the 
government  in  1567,  the  Philippists  were  dismissed,  and  the 
Flacianists  (not  Flacius  himself)  were  reinstated.  Thereupon 
war  broke  out  afresh.  Soon  Jena  was  in  arms  against  Leipzig 
and  Wittenberg.  In  the  years  1568-9  a  colloquy  was  held  at 
Altenburg.  In  this  colloquy  and  in  the  Endlicher  Berieht  the 
theologians  and  superintendents  of  Electoral  Saxony  planted 
themselves  squarely  on  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  its  Apol- 
ogy, and  on  the  Corpus  Doctriuae  Pliilippicum,  and  maintained 
unequivocally  that  Free-will  by  its  native  powers  can  contribute 
nothing  whatever  to  man's  conversion  and  justification,  but  at 
the  same  time  they  declare  that  Free-will  is  not  a  block  or  a 
stone,  that  in  conversion  man  is  not  absolutely  passive,  as  the 
Flacianists  so  persistently  taught. 

In  ]\Iarch  (1569)  the  theologians  of  Ducal  Saxony,  headed  by 
John  Wigand,  presented  a  Confession,  in  which,  almost  at  the 
very  beginning,  they  say :  ' '  We  embrace  the  doctrine  and 
the  view  of  Dr.  Luther,  the  Elias  of  these  last  days,  as  they  have 
been  transmitted  most  luminously  and  skillfully  in  the  De  Servo 
Arbitrio  against  Erasmus,  in  the  -Commentary  on  Genesis  and 
in  other  books,  and  we  judge  that  Luther's  view  harmonizes 
with  the  everlasting  Word  of  God.''  True  to  this  declaration 
they  accept  and  quote  the  De  Servo  Arbitrio  and  other  works  of 
Luther  as  final :  "  It  is  certain  that  Free-will  is  nothing  else 
than  the  supreme  enemy  of  righteousness  of  man's  salvation." 
"AVe  are  like  a  block  marred  in  every  possible  manner."  "In 
theology  man  is  verily  a  pillar  of  salt  as  was  Lot's  wife." 
"]Man  is  absolutely  passive  and  does  nothing,  but  is  wholly 
made."  "We  are  only  passive."  "We  do  nothing,  but  only 
suffer."  "God  himself  converts,  us,  not  we  ourselves."  It  is 
also  said  in  this  Confession:  "As  in  the  beginning  in  the 
womb  of  the  mother,  God  creates  and  forms  us  men  without 
our  cooperation,  so  also  does  he  recreate  us  by  water  and  the 
Spirit,  as  Prosper  beautifully  says:  'Vasque  novum  ex  fracto 
fingit  virtute  creandi.'  "   That  is,  the  Confession  of  these  Ducal 

*  Schlusselbuig,   XIII.,   840-844.     Otto,   p.    56.      Preger,    II.,    173. 
t  Gieseler,  lY.,  p.  4.56.  note  8. 


366  THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSY. 

theologians  teaches  without  qualification  or  equivocation  the 
pure  passive  theory  of  conversion,  just  as  Flacius  does  in  his 
numerous  discussions  on  Original  Sin  and  on  Free-will,  and, 
like  Flacius,  this  second  set  of  Jena  Flacianists  go  back  to 
Luther's  De  Servo  Arhitrio,  and  to  other  writings  of  Luther, 
and  they  close  their  Confession  by  saying  that  those  who  inter- 
pret Luther's  writings  differently  from  what  they  themselves 
have  done,  "Should  be  publicly  censured  as  falsifiers  of  Luther's 
books,  as  robbers  of  Christ's  Church,  as  thieves  and  sacrilegious 
persons;  for  they  try  wickedly,  not  so  much  to  rob  Luther  of 
his  books,  as  God  and  the  entire  Church  of  sound  doctrine  and 
of  the  glorious  deposit."  * 

7.     Conclusion. 

There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  teaching  of  the  Flacianists 
on  the  subject  of  Free-will :  It  is  the  reproduction  of  the 
fatalistic  or  necessitarian  side  of  Luther's  De  Servo  Arhitt'io. 
It  declares  that  in  conversion  man  is  a  block,  a  stone,  is  abso- 
hitely  passive,  does  nothing,  but  simply  suffers  the  operation  of 
God.  Their  object  in  the  maintenance  of  such  a  position  is  to 
bestow  upon  God  all  honor  in  the  conversion  and  salvation  of 
man.  Their  object  is  commendable.  But  one  profound  and  evi- 
dent biblical  teaching  does  not  need  to  be  maintained  at  the 
expense  of  another  biblical  teaching  equally  profound  and 
equally  evident.  The  Bible  does  not  treat  men  as  stocks  and 
stones,  but  as  rational  and  ethical  beings.  It  calls  upon  men  to 
hear  the  Word  of  God,  to  cease  resistance,  to  repent,  and  to 
assent  to  the  heavenly  message.  Such  things  cannot  be  done 
without  some  activity  on  the  part  of  man,  though  such  activ- 
ity is  to  be  considered  as  absolutely  destitute  of  every  kind  and 
degree  of  justifying  merit.  It  is  simply  the  activity  that  ac- 
cepts God's  bestowment.  It  has  in  it  no  causal  efficiency, 
neither  is  it  the  product  of  the  natural  powers  of  man.  When 
grace  precedes,  the  Will  follows  was  the  motto  and  ensign  of 
the  Philippists.  It  redounds  to  the  honor  of  the  Philippists 
that  without  derogating  from  the  Soli  Deo  Gloria,  or  the  Fide 
Sola,  or  the  Propter  Christum,  they  conserved  and  promulgated 
the  ethical  element  in  Conversion,  and  resisted  the  doctrine  of 

^  This  Confession  is  found  in  Schliisselburg,  V.,  132-200.  Schliisselburg 
says:  "In  this  Confession,  the  universal  doctrine  of  Free-will  is  learnedly, 
piously,  and  gravely  expounded,  and  the  errors  of  the  Synergists  are  nerv- 
ously, perspicuously  and  solidly  reviewed  and  refuted. ' ' 


THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSY.  367 

Necessity  and  the  ]\Ianiehaeism  which  ]\IelaDchthon  discovered 
in  the  writings  of  Amsdorf,  Flaeius,  Galhis  and  Stoltz,  and 
"the  fantasies  of  Schwenckf eld " — all  of  which  he  denounced 
and  refuted  in  his  Opinion,  March  9,  1559,  on  the  Weimar 
Confutation  Book/^ 

Hence  when  we  take  full  and  honest  account  of  the  posi- 
tion and  teaching  of  the  Philippists  on  Free-will,  we  discover  at 
once  that  the  allegations  of  the  Flacianists  that  the  Philippists 
taught  that  "the  natural  man  by  his  natural  powers,  yet  un- 
regenerate,  is  able,  in  his  conversion  or  regeneration,  .to  attend  to, 
to  understand  and  to  appropriate  the  things  of  God,"  and 
that  the  Philippists  were  Pelagians,  sophists,  sacrilegious,  and 
"attributed  to  the  power  and  strength  of  the  natural  will  some 
part  in  conversion"  f — that  all  such  allegations  are  utterly  false 
and  without  foundation  in  fact. 

But  as  we  have  before  us  the  chief  writings  of  the  lead- 
ing Philippists  on  the  subject  of  Free-will,  we  are  enabled  to 
show  exactly  what  they  did  teach  on  the  subject.  In  the  case 
of  Melanchthon  we  refer  the  reader  to  what  we  have  said  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  Pfeffinger's  views  have  been  set  forth 
at  length  in  the  beginning  of  the  present  chapter.  Strigel  speaks 
most  distinctly  in  his  Declaration.  Of  him  Salig  correctly  says : 
"Strigel  never  spoke  of  three  efficient  and  apprehending  causes 
of  conversion,  but  only  of  three  concurring  causes.  The  Holy 
Spirit  is  the  efficient  cause,  the  Word  the  instrumental.  If  it 
be  asked.  Is  the  Will  a  cause?  the  answer  is:  The  AVill  does  '  -^ 
not  have  the  nature  of  an  efficient  cause,  but  in  so  far  as  it  is  ' 
assisted,  urged,  moved,  turned,  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  works 
in  one  way  in  children,  and  in  another  way  in  adults.  The 
Holy  Spirit  draws  us.  The  Will  does  not  draw  itself,  but  is 
drawn  by  the  Word,  though  not  as  a  block.  It  has  its  o^vn 
modus  agendi."  t    To  the  same  effect  are  Strigel's  own  declara- 

^  C.  E.  IX.,  763  et  seqq. 

t  Schliisselburg,  V.,  16  et  seqq.  Sehlusselburg.'s  account  of  Synergism, 
vol.  v.,  13-51,  is  a  caricature,  a  tissue  of  inveracity  and  sophistry  from  be- 
ginning to  end,  and  has  been  much  used  by  writers  who  have  not  examined 
the  sources  of  knowledge.  He  speaks  of  the  Synergists  as  a  sect,  and  names 
Melanchthon,  George  Major,  .John  Pfeffinger,  Paul  Eber,  Victorine  Strigel 
and  Paul  Crell  as  the  chief  promoters  of  "this  error."  "Also  the  anti- 
Lutheran  Wittenbergers,  degenerate  disciples  of  Luther,  in  many  accursed 
books,  undertook  to  defend  synergia  of  the  carnal  Will  in  spiritual  things." 
He  says  that  such  are  also  called  ' '  cooperators ' '  from  the  cooperation  which 
they  assign  to  a  dead,  unregenerate  man  in  conversion.  He  says  that  the 
Germans  call  them  Die  freyivilligen  Herrn,  because,  contrary  to  the  Word 
of  God,  thev  attribute  some  freedom  to  the  unregenerate  bond  Will. 

t  Salig,   ill.,   613-14. 


368  THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  CONTKOVERSY. 

tioiis  in  the  AVeiinar  Disputatio,  pp.  8,  40,  102,  where  he  says 
that  neither  he  nor  his  preceptors  (the  Wittenberg  theologi- 
cal Faculty)  "had  ever  used  the  new  words,  cooperation  and 
synergia."  He  insisted  with  Ambrose  and  Prosper  that  Free- 
will is  "horriblj'  depraved,  not  absolutely  destroyed."  "The 
question  in  Free-will  is.  Whether  Free-will  is  absolutely  de- 
stroyed, so  that  man  does  not  differ  from  a  brute  and  an  ass,  or 
whether  it  is  only  depraved?"*  In  his  Loci  Tlieologici,  pub- 
lished posthumously  by  Pezel,  he  lays  down  the  proposition : 
"The  Will  is  effectively  draivn  hy  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  we 
attribute  the  drawing  of  the  Will  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  rule  of  Augustine :  The  divine  actions  ad 
extra  are  conunon.  .  .  .  They  who  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
that  is,  are  urged,  are  moved,  these  are  the  sons  of  God.  But 
how  does  the  Holy  Spirit  draw?  Here,  in  the  proposition,  it  is 
said  the  Will  is  effectively  drawn,  that  is,  the  Holy  Spirit, 
through  the  Word,  which  we  never  exclude,  restores  to  the  Will 
the  power,  or  strength,  or  ability  to  believe,  which  was  lost  in 
the  Fall;  This  power  {dunamin),  this  strength  (efificaciam),  I 
attribute  not  to  our  own  powers,  which  would  be  blasphemy 
against  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Son  of  God,  but  I  attribute  to 
the  author  his  own  effect,  his  own  work.  Therefore  I  say  that 
the  Will  is  effectively  drawn  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  the  power 
(dunamis)  of  believing  is  restored."  f 

In  the  year  1561  "the  anti-Lutheran  Wittenbergers,  degen- 
erate disciples  of  Luther,"  as  Schliisselburg  calls  the  Wittenberg 
theologians,  published  a  Confession  and  Opinion  on  Free-icill.t 
They  reject  the  conception  that  man  is  like  a  block  and  is  con- 
verted while  resisting,  as  the  Flaciauists  taught, §  but  they  say 
that  "when  man  consents,  he  does  not  do  this  by  the  power  and 
worthiness  of  his  own  Will,  but  by  the  efficacious  operation  of 
God,  who  in  this  way  operates  through  the  Word  and  the  voice 
of  the  Gospel,  and  not  otherwise.  || 

Referring  to  the  accusation  of  Flacius  and  his  colleagues  that 
Melanchthon,  in  his  Loci  Communes,  teaches  that  "man  by  the 
power  of  Free-will  applies  himself  to  grace,"  they  say:  "That 
is  impudens  mendacium,  for  up  to  this  time  the  passage  has  not 
been  found. "  ^ 

*  Acta  Disput.  Vinar.  (1562),  p.  40. 

t  Pars  Frivia,  pp.  370-1. 

t  Schliisselburg,  V.,  525  et  seqq. 

^  Acta  Disput.  Vi)iar.,  ed.  Musaeus   (1563),  pp.  2.  382,  et  passim. 

1 1  Schliisselburg,  V.,  529. 

H  Ibid.,  p.  526. 


THE    ANTHROI'OLOGICAL   COXTROVKRSY.  369 

In  the  year  1570  these  same  "degenerate  disciples  of  Luther" 
issued  a  manifesto  Containing  a  Summary  of  the  Chief  Chapters 
of  Christian  Doctrine  taught  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg. 
This  Summary  is  signed  inter  alios  by  Nicholas  Selneccer,  who 
subsequently  performed  a  most  conspicuous  part  in  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Under  the  subject  of  Con- 
versio7i,  Propositions  XCYII.,  XCVIII.,  these  Wittenberg  theo- 
logians say:  "The  entire  work  of  conversion  is  the  beneficent 
action  of  God  alone,  as  the  Prophet  cries  out:  Convert  me  and  I 
shall  be  converted,  because  thou  art  my  Lord  God,  for  after 
thou  hast  converted  me  I  will  repent,  etc.  But  God  has  estab- 
lished this  order,  in  order  that  conversion  may  be  effected  in  us : 
God  by  the  Word  draws  and  moves  the  Will,  so  that  it  may  not 
oppose,  nor  expect  compulsion,  but  may  follow  the  Holy  Spirit 
who  draws  it,  as  is  said  in  Romans  8.  For  so  long  as  the  Will 
altogether  resists  the  Word  of  God  who  draws,  no  conversion 
takes  place.  Therefore  our  churches  have  always  taught  that 
conversion  takes  place  according  to  the  declarations  of  the  an- 
cients: When  grace  precedes,  the  will  follows;  also  God  draws, 
but  he  draws  him  who  is  willing;  and  Nazianzen  has  very  mod- 
estly said :  All  strength  is  in  God  alone,  but  it  is  given  to  those 
who  are  called  and  who  assent." 

Then  they  condemn  the  Manichaeans  and  the  Pelagians,  and 
"execrate  the  madness  of  the  Sehwenckfeldians  and  of  the  An- 
abaptists, who  contend  that  God  communicates  himself  to  man 
without  the  ministry  or  without  reflection  on  doctrine.  But  on 
the  contrary,  in  conversion  these  three  things  always  concur : 
The  Word  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  Will  of  man  assenting 
to  and  not  resisting  the  Word  of  God. ' '  They  also  say,  as  against 
the  Flacianists:  "But  in  the  common  exercises  of  the  call,  of 
faith,  of  prayer,  of  obedience  toward  God,  the  human  Will,  in 
so  far  as  it  has  begun  to  be  healed,  follows  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
operates  through  the  Word,  and  when  it  is  assisted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  it  is  not  like  a  block  or  a  stone. ' ' 

Such,  in  brief,  is  the  teaching  of  this  book  On  Conversion.  In 
its  several  hundred  pages  we  have  not  found  a  single  sentence 
that  justifies  the  allegation  of  the  Flacianists  that  the  Wittenberg 
theologians  taught  that  man  by  his  natural  powers  of  Free-will 
can  apply  himself  to  grace  or  come  to  conversion,  nor  is  there 
one  word  to  show  that  they  regarded  the  Will  as  causa  efficiens 
or  causa  meritoria  in  attaining  faith,  conversion,  salvation.  On 
the  contrary,  nowhere  in  all  Lutheran  theological  literature  is  the 

24 


370  THE  ANTHROPOLOGICAL  CONTKOVEKSY. 

doctrine  of  justification  by  faith  alone  set  forth  Avith  greater 
clearness,  and  with  more  frequent  use  of  the  particulae  exclusivae 
of  the  Propter  Christum,  of  the  gratuita  imputatio,  than  is  done 
in  the  section  Of  Justification  in  this  book.* 

The  doctrine  of  conversion,  as  set  forth  in  this  book,  is  exactly 
that  set  forth  by  Melanchthon  in  the  Loci  Communes,  1535,  1543- 
1559,  and  in  other  discussions  of  the  subject,  viz.,  that  when  the 
Will  is  drawn  by  God  through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word, 
and  is  assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is  not  absolutely  inactive, 
but  it  assents  to  the  Word  and  does  not  resist.  In  Proposition 
LIII.  of  this  book  sin  is  defined  as  anomia,  "not  only  as  vicious 
actions  and  inclinations,  but  also  as  internal  defects";  "actions 
in  the  mind,  the  will,  the  heart  and  in  the  external  members, 
which  do  contrary  to  the  Law."  "Original  sin  is  the  horrible 
evil  in  the  nature  of  men."  "Corruption  and  depravation  of 
the  image  of  God."  "Darkness  in  the  mind."  "In  the  will 
aversion  from  God. "^  "In  the  heart  a  dreadful  contumacy." 
"This  evil  most  tenaciously  clings  to  the  entire  substance  of 
man's  nature,  and  Avith  the  substance  is  transmitted  to  poster- 
ity." "But  we  detest  the  impious  and  absurd  doctrine  of 
Flacius,  who  makes  sin  the  substance,  and  even,  as  he  says,  the 
rational  soul  itself  ...  a  phj^sical  transformation  into  a  new 
substance. ' ' 

Thus  it  is  evident  that  on  every  phase  of  the  subjects  involved 
in  this  controversy  the  Philippists  were  soundly  Lutheran,  and 
taught  in  harmony  with  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  its  Apol- 
ogy as  they  had  been  interpreted  nemine  contrndiccnte  for  more 
than  a  quarter  of  a  century. 

The  Flacianists  were  the  innovators.  They  were  the  ones  who 
tried  to  insinuate  a  new  doctrine  of  Free-will  into  the  older  Con- 
fessions of  the  Lutheran  Church,  a  doctrine  drawn  from  Luther's 
De  Servo  Ai'hitrio  and,  in  part  at  least,  based  on  the  Manichaean 
doctrine  of  sin.  and  embracing  in  its  complete  concept  the  doc- 
trine of  absolute  predestination  and  that  of  particularistic  elec- 
tion. The  Philippists  maintained  the  true  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
sin,  both  original  and  actual ;  maintained  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  the  universality  of  the  Call,  and  taught  that  when  the  Will 
(Voluntas)  is  excited  and  assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit  through 
the  Word,  it  is  not  absolutely  inactive,  but  assents  to  or  rejects 

*  The  principal  title  of  this  very  rare  book  is :  Propositiones,  Orationes 
et  QuaesUones,  Continentes  Summam  Confessionis  Academiae  Witebergensis. 
Date  of  Preface:  October,  1.570.  Printed  at  Wittenberg  by  John  Schwertel, 
1571. 


THE    ANTHROPOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  371 

the  divine  promise  and  offer  of  salvation.  Their  ever-recurring^ 
motto  was  the  Aiigustinian  dictum:  When  grace  precedes,  the 
Will  follows. 

But  the  many  protests  and  explanations  of  the  Philippists 
availed  nothing  with  the  Flaeianists.  The  latter  went  on  with 
their  calumnies  and  accusations.  At  the  Altenburg  Colloquy 
(1568-9)  the  Ducal  theologians  (Jena-AVeimar)  still  accuse  the 
Electoral  theologians  (Leipzig- Wittenberg)  with  teaching  that 
"the  natural  man  as  regards  his  natural  powers  is  able  in  his  con- 
version and  regeneration  to  attend  to,  to  understand,  to  appre- 
hend the  things  of  God";  "that  corrupt  man  by  his  natural 
powers  is  able  not  only  to  attend  to  the  Word,  but  to  understand 
it":  "that  man  by  doing  what  is  in  himself  is  able  to  prepare 
himself  for  the  grace  of  God'"';  "that  Free-will  is  the  power  of 
self-application  to  grace."* 

The  method  of  these  Ducal  theologians  was  simply  to  garble 
the  statements  of  their  opponents,  and  then  to  make  comments 
on  the  garbled  statements.  Their  own  views  they  avowedly  base 
on  Luther's  De  Servo  Arbitrio,  and  then  say  that  their  views 
are  in  harmony  with  the  Church  Fathers  and  with  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  whereas  it  is  certain  that  no  Church  Father  ever 
taught,  as  these  Ducal  theologians  do,  that  man  in  his  conversion 
is  absolutely  passive,  is  like  a  block,  a  stone,  a  pillar  of  salt,  as 
was  Lot's  wife.  And  we  have  showni  that  it  is  both  historically 
and  psychologically  absurd  to  read  such  meaning  into  the  Augs- 
burg Confession. 

But  happily  for  the  Lutheran  Church,  this,  the  most  violent  of 
all  the  Lutheran  controversies  of  the  sixteenth  century,  was  con- 
fined, in  the  main,  to  Ducal  Saxony  and  Electoral  Saxony.  Qn 
the  subject  of  Free-will  the  Swabians  were  prevailingly  with  the 
Philippists.  In  Lower  Saxony,  Pomerania,  Mecklenburg,  the 
most  influential  theologians  were  essentially  ]\Telanchthonians.t 

*  Colloquium  Altenburgense,  Jena,  1570.     De  Libera  Arbitrio. 
t  See  Gieseler,  Church  History,  TV.,  486,  note  24. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

In  Article  III.  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  it  is  declared  that 
the  "one  Christ,  who  is  true  God  and  man,  was  truly  born, 
suffered,  was  crucified,  died  and  was  buried,  that  he  might  be  a 
sacrifice,  not  only  for  original  sin,  but  also  for  all  other  sins,  and 
might  appease  the  wrath  of  God." 

This  article  is  the  presupposition  and  the  basis  of  the  declara- 
tion contained  in  Article  IV.  of  the  Confession,  that  "we  may 
acquire  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  righteousness  before  God,  not 
by  our  own  merit,  work  and  satisfaction,  but  that  we  obtain  the 
forgiveness  of  sins  and  are  justified  before  God  out  of  grace  for 
Christ's  sake  by  faith,"  etc. 

The  article  of  Christ  and  of  his  work,  standing  thus  so  near 
to  the  center  of  the  Lutheran  system,  would  be  naturally  viewed 
with  the  liveliest  interest,  for  without  the  Christ  of  Article  III., 
there  could  not  be  the  doctrine  of  justification  as  the  same  is 
exhibited  in  Article  lY.  Hence  the  doctrine  of  the  person  and 
work  of  Christ,  or  Christology,  would  naturally  come  to  occupy 
an  important  place  in  the  Lutheran  system;  and  because  of  its 
importance  in  the  system  it  would  be  likely  to  excite  controversy. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Lutheran  Church  had  a  Christological 
Controversy,  and  that  controversy  has  left  an  abiding  impression 
on  the  confessional  history  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  In  its  es- 
sence the  Christology  of  the  Lutheran  Church  goes  back  to  that 
of  Chalcedon;  but  it  bears  characteristics  derived  from  persons 
and  circumstances. 

1.     Luther's  Christology. 

Luther's  Christ  was  the  "true  God,  begotten  of  the  Father  in 
eternity,  and  also  true  man,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,"  as  he 
declares  in  the  Small  Catechism.  This  Christ  lay  in  the  manger 
at  Bethlehem,  fled  into  Egypt,  was  brought  up  in  Nazareth,  was 
seen  of  men,  and  died  on  the  Cross.  This  Christ  is  himself  "true 
and  living  God,"  and  by  uniting  himself  with  us  he  abolishes 
our  sin  and  death,  and  gives  us  life  and  salvation.  This  Christ.' 
"consisting  of  two  natures,  suffered."    Because  he  is  divine  and 

(372) 


THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL   CONTROVERSY,  373 

human  he  is  the  true  mercy-seat.  In  him  and  through  him  we 
find  grace  and  love  and  favor.  He  who  seeks  God  apart  from 
this  Christ  will  find  God  as  he  appears  in  Moses :  A  God  who  is 
a  consuming  fire.* 

These  are  the  fundamental  principles  of  Luther's  Christology. 
AVith  him  redemption  is  the  work  of  the  entire  Christ,  whose  two 
natures  operate  together  in  every  mediatorial  and  redemptory 
transaction. 

Hence  Luther  could  not  tolerate  Zwingli  's  Aloosis,  which,  as  it 
seemed  to  him,  separates  the  natures  of  Christ  and  assigns  to 
one  nature  what  the  Scriptures  assign  to  the  whole  person.  He 
maintained  that  "wherever  the  operations  are  divided  and  sep- 
arated, the  person  will  also  be  divided,  because  all  the  operations 
or  sufferings  must  also  be  attributed  to  the  person  and  not  to  the 
natures.  For  it  is  the  person  which  suffers  all,  one  thing  accord- 
ing to  this  nature,  and  another  according  to  that  nature,  as  all 
the  learned  know.  Accordingly,  we  hold  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
as  God  and  man  in  one  person,  not  confounding  the  natures  nor 
dividing  the  person,  "f 

And  yet  Luther,  perhaps  in  reaction  against  the  habit  of 
Scholasticism  to  lay  the  chief  stress  on  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
shows  a  preference,  or  at  least  a  great  fondness,  for  the  human 
nature  of  Christ.  He  holds  that  Christ  had  a  human  develop- 
ment. He  acted,  played,  suffered,  and  did  this,  that  and  the 
other  thing,  just  like  other  children,  yet  without  sin.  He  grew 
in  spirit  and  in  msdom,  and  as  man  he  did  not  always  know  all 
things.  The  very  flesh  of  Christ  must  be  observed:  "Let  us 
turn  from  those  who  say:  The  flesh  profiteth  nothing.  Rather 
turn  and  say:  God  without  flesh  profiteth  nothing.  For  upon 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  upon  the  child  who  lay  on  the  bosom  of  the 
Virgin  must  the  eyes  be  fastened,  so  that  we  can  say  with  abso- 
lute confidence:  I  have  no  God,  neither  in  heaven  nor  on  the 
earth,  I  even  know  of  none,  apart  from  the  flesh  which  lay  on 
the  bosom  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  If  thou  sayest  this,  then  fear 
not  that  thou  wilt  depart  from  God,  or  that  thy  heart  will  fall 
into  doubt  through  fright  and  fear. ' '  t 

And  as  a  correlate  of  this  view  of  Christ  as  God  and  man  ex- 
isting and  manifest  in  one  undivided  and  indivisible  person, 
Luther  held  that  the  Christian  is  personally  united  with  Christ : 

*  See  Luther's  Schriften,  St.  Louis  ed.,  VI.,  49-51.  Jena  edition,  VII., 
99&. 

t  Werlce,  Erl.  Ed.,  30 :  200  et  seqq. 
t  WerJce,  St.  Louis  Ed.,  VI.,  i50. 


374  THE    CHKISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

"Thou  hast  taken  mine,  and  hast  given  me  thine.     Thou  didst 
become  what  thou  wast  not  and  didst  make  me  what  I  was  not." 
Faith  unites  Christ  and  the  believer  in  a  spiritual  union  which 
is  more  intimate  than  that  of  tiesh  and  blood,  a  kind  of  com- 
municatio  idiomatum,  in  which  there  is  a  reciprocal  giving  and 
taking.     Christ  gives  me  his  righteousness,  and  takes  the  guilt 
'of  my  sin  and  makes  me  a  child  of  God :    "In  Christ  and  with 
'Christ  I  have  at  once  the  heart  and  will  of  the  Father,  the  per- 
■son  in  whom  the  Father  dwells  bodily,  so  that  in  Christ  and 
through  Christ,  I  am  one  thing  with  the  Father. ' '   Christ  became 
incarnate  by  the  Virgin  Mary  that  he  might  draw  us  who  believe 
on  the  Father,  as  he  is  in  the  Father  :    ' '  This  connection  has  he 
^established  between  himself  and  us  and  the  Father,  and  in  this  he 
embraces  us,  so  that  we  are  now  in  him,  and  he  in  us,  as  he  is  in 
the  Father  and  the  Father  in  us.    By  this  union  and  communion 
x)ur  sin  and  death  are  removed,  and  we  have  life  and  salvation 
instead."    "What  he  is  by  nature  that  we  become  by  grace:  The 
sons  of  God,  copartners,  partakers  of  the  divine  nature,  and  thus 
by  faith  in  him  the  incarnation  is  representatively  continued. ' '  * 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  this  representation  there  is  an  ele- 
ment of  mysticism.     But  in  the  mind  of  Luther  this  was  ju- 
diciously balanced  by  the  purely  objective  character  of  his  doc- 
trine of  justification,  which -has  its  ground  in  the  divine-human 
Christ,  who  in  his  two  natures  operates  for  us  as  one  undivided 
person,  before  he  dwells  in  us  and  unites  us  with  himself  and  his 
Father.    First  comes  justification  as  a  forensic  act  of  God.    Then 
comes  the  mystic  union  with  God.     The  former  is  for  the  sake 
of  Christ.    The  latter  is  through  Christ.     Christ  as  true  man  and 
true  God  forms  the  connecting  link  between  man  and  God  the 
Father.    The  consciousness  of  a  union  thus  formed  may  be  called 
mysticism,  and  is  sure  to  dwell  in  the  Christian  mind  that  is 
naturally  speculative  and  intuitively  religious. 

2.  MelaiicJithoii. 
Melanchthon 's  unspeculative  mind  developed  nothing  new  in 
Christology.  He  regarded  the  co)}n)iu)iicatio  idiomatum  as  a 
figure  of  speech.f  He  held  that  there  are  two  natures  in  Christ, 
and  that  Christ  died.  The  presence  of  one  nature  in  Christ  does 
not  hinder  the  operations  peculiar  to  the  other  nature.    It  belongs 

*  See  Thomasius,  Dogmevgeschichie,  II..  578. 

t  Est  autem  figura  sermonis,  qua  proprietas  alteri  naturae  couveniens 
Iribuitur  toti  personae  in  concreto  ut  Deus  est  homo,  Chiistus  est  niortuus. 
C.  R.  XXL,  363. 


THE    CHKISTOI.OGICAL    CONTKOVKRSY.  375 

to  the  liiuuan  nature  to  sutt'er  and  to  die.  What  belongs  to  the 
one  nature  is  attributed  to  the  entire  person  in  the  concrete,  so 
that  God  is  man,  Christ  is  God.  His  own  words,  as  found  in  the 
last  edition  of  the  Loci  Communes  (1559),  are  as  follows:  "This 
proposition  is  not  true :  The  divine  nature  is  human.  But  this  is 
true:.  God  is  man,  the  Word  is  man,  Christ  is  man,  Christ  is 
God.  God  was  born  of  a  virgin,  suffered ;  because  this  person  in 
whom  by  the  personal  union  the  divine  is  united  to  the  human 
nature,  is  born,  is  crucified.  This  form  of  speaking  in  the  con- 
crete we  call  communicatio  idioniatum,  that  is,  a  declaration  by 
which  the  properties  of  the  natures  are  correctly  attributed  to 
the  per.son,  so  that  the  Son  of  God  is  Redeemer,  and  not  the 
human  nature  only. ' '  * 

And  in  the  matter  of  justification  ]\Ielanchthon  lays  all  stress 
on  its  purely  objective,  forensic  character.  Witii  him,  faith  is 
not  merely  fides,  but  rather  is  it  fiducia,  the  confidence  of  the 
heart :  and  by  no  means  is  faith  the  knowledge  of  history.  It  is 
not  enough  to  believe  that  Christ  was  born,  suffered,  died,  rose 
again.  Faith  must  embrace  the  final  cause  of  history:  The  Re- 
mission of  Sins.  And  this  remission  of  sins  does  not  come  on 
account  of  virtues  or  of  any  excellence  of  character  in  us,  but  is 
bestowed  alone  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  Nor  does  faith  justify 
because  it  is  a  meritorious  work,  but  alone  because  it  lays  hold 
of  the  promised  mercy. "I" 

None  the  less  objective  is  he  in  the  last  edition  of  the  Loci, 
where  he  says:  "We  are  justified  by  faith,  that  is,  by  confidence 
in  mercy  we  are  received  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  not  on  account  of 
our  own  virtues.  For  this  mercy  is  laid  hold  of  by  faith  or  by 
confidence."  He  holds  that  good  works,  or  the  new  obedience, 
are  the  fruits  of  faith :  ' '  Our  obedience,  that  is,  the  righteous- 
ness of  a  good  conscience  or  of  works,  which  God  enjoins  upon 
us,  ought  necessarily  to  follow  reconciliation.  For  Christ  mani- 
festly commands  in  regard  to  repentance,  and  Paul  says:  We 
are  debtors,  not  to  live  after  the  fiesh." 

All  this  is  plain  and  didactic.  It  is  the  Christology  of  the 
Fathers  restated  principally  in  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  which  had  joined  faith  and  Avorks  in 
the  Article  of  Justification,  and  had  in  large  part  swept  Christ 
from  the  vision  of  the  people.  It  does  not  differ  in  its  christolog- 
ical  aspects  from  the  doctrine  of  Luther,  except  that  it  has  no 
specnlative  element,   such  as   Luther  introduced   in   connection 

*  C.  R.  XXT..  627.  t  So  in  the  Apology,  Art.  De  Jusiipcatinne. 


376  THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL    COXTROVEKSY. 

with  his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  no  mystical  element, 
such  as  Luther  often  introduced  in  his  The  Freedom  of  a  Chris- 
tian Man,  and  in  his  House  Postils,  though  as  Luther  grew  older 
his  sense  of  the  Christ  for  us  more  and  more  took  precedence  of 
his  sense  of  the  Christ  in  us.* 

3.  Andrew  Osiander. 
Andrew  Osiander  was  born  at  Gunzenhausen  on  the  Altmiihl, 
some  six  German  miles  from  Niirnberg,  December  19,  1498.  He 
attended  school  at  Leipzig  and  at  Altenburg,  and  later  he  entered 
the  University  of  Ingolstadt.  He  studied  theology  at  Wittenberg. 
In  1520  he  became  teacher  of  Hebrew  in  the  Augustinian  Cloister 
at  Niirnberg.  In  1522  he  was  elected  preacher  in  the  St.  Law- 
rence Church,  and  entered  soon  upon  his  active  career  of  re- 
former. In  1530  he  attended  the  Diet  of  Augsburg  as  one  of  the 
Niirnberg  legates.  In  1530-3  he  assisted  in  composing  the  Bran- 
denburg-Niirnberg  Church  Order.  Refusing  to  submit  to  the 
Augsburg  Interim,  he  went  into  voluntary  exile  and  came  to 
Konigsberg,  in  East  Prussia,  at  the  beginning  of  1549.  Very 
soon  thereafter  he  became  pastor  of  the  Old  City  Church,  and 
then  first  professor  of  theology  in  the  University.  He  was  a 
talented  and  learned  man,  and  had  been  regarded  as  a"  sound 
Lutheran,  though  he  probably  had  never  had  a  clear  apprehen- 
sion of  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification.  At  least,  in  a 
disputation  held  in  October,  1550,  on  Justification  by  Faith, 
which  w^as  followed  in  1551  by  a  treatise,  entitled  Of  the  Only 
Mediator  Jesus  Christ  and  Justification  hy  Faith,  he  developed 
views  that  brought  on  the  Osiandrian  Controversy,  in  which  Phil- 
ippists  and  Flacianists  stood  essentially  together  in  opposition  to 
Osiander  and  his  followers,  though  John  Brentz,  who  agreed  per- 
fectly wdth  Melanchthon  in  all  other  doctrines,  sympathized 
strongly  with  Osiander. f 

Instead  of  setting  forth  justification  as  an  external,  objective, 
forensic  act.  by  which  one  who  believes  in  Christ  is  declared 
righteous  in  the  sight  of  God,  Osiander  taught  that  justification 
is  an  internal,  subjective,  personal  change  effected  in  the  be- 
liever by  the  infusion  into  him  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  or 
by  the  personal  indwelling  of  the  Logos  in  the  believer.J 

*  Kostlin's  Liither's  Theology  (Eng.  Trans.),  II.,  425  et  seqq. 

t  C.  E.  IX.,  311,  319,  402,  452,  457.  The  Lutheran  Quarterly,  July,  1905, 
pp.  338-9. 

±  Verein  fur  BeformationsgescMchte,  No.  45,  p.  62.  For  an  extended  ac- 
count of  Osiander 's  course  at  Konigsberg,  and  for  his  theses,  on  which  he 


THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  377 

It  was  at  once  seen  that  such  a  view  of  justification  deprives 
faith  of  its  significance  as  an  instrument  whose  immediate  object 
is  the  promise  of  grace  contained  in  the  Gospel.  In  the  genuine 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification,  faith  and  the  promise  are  held 
to  be  correlates  of  each  other.  The  promise  must  be  accepted  by 
faith.  The  Gospel  offers  and  promises  reconciliation  to  all  who 
believe. 

None  the  less  apparent  was  it  that  the  Osiandrian  theory  re- 
duces the  value  of  the  concrete  Christ.  It  virtually  excludes  the 
humanity  of  Christ  as  a  factor  in  his  redemptory  activity,  and 
says  that  we  are  saved  by  the  divinity  of  Christ.  At  least,  the 
supreme  stress  is  laid  on  the  divinity  of  Christ,  not  on  the  God- 
man.  Osiander  says :  " The  divine  Word  (Essence)  renews  our 
old  man  totally,  so  that  we  become  new  creatures."  "To  justify, 
in  its  proper  and  primary  sense,  means  to  make  a  just  person  out 
of  an  unjust  one,  that  is,  to  recall  a  dead  person  to  life."  "Be- 
cause the  Gospel  brings  the  Word  of  God.  that  is.  Christ,  into 
the  heart,  soul  and  spirit,  so  that  we  are  quickened  thereby,  we 
live  in  God  and  from  God;  yea,  God  himself  is  our  life,  and  re- 
covers his  power,  and  justifies,  that  is,  makes  us  righteous,  and 
that  in  the  very  sense  in  which  he  makes  us  alive. "  "  God  dwells 
in  believers  according  to  his  true  divine  essence.  For  where 
Christ  is,  there  also  is  his  divine  nature  or  essence;  but  where 
the  Son  of  God  is  according  to  his  divine  essence,  there  are  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  inseparably.  For  Father,  Son  and 
Holy  Spirit  are  one  eternal  indivisible  divine  essence."  "They 
teach  more  coldly  than  ice  who  teach  that  we  are  accounted 
righteous  onlj^  on  account  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  not  on 
account  of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  which  dwells  in  us  by 
faith. "  "  God  dwells  in  believers  according  to  his  true  divine 
essence.  For  where  Christ  is,  there  also  is  his  divine  nature  or 
essence:  but  where  the  Son  of  God  is  according  to  his  divine 
essence,  there  are  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  inseparably. 
For  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit  are  one  eternal  indivisible 
divine  essence."  He  repeatedly  insists  that  Christ  is  our  right- 
eousness, the  Holy  Spirit  is  our  righteousness,  the  Father  is  our 
righteousness.  The  reason  given  for  this  threefold  statement  is 
that  there  is  only  one  and  the  same  divine  Essence.  He  does  not 
dispense  with  faith.  Faith  is  our  righteousness,  not  because  it  is 
a  good  work,  but  because  it  allows  Christ  to  dwell  in  us. 

held  a  disputation,  October  24,  1550,  see  Hartknoch,  PrevssiscJie  Kirchen- 
Historie,  pp.  .309  et  seqq. 


378  THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

Neither  is  the  human  nature  ignored  in  Osiander's  theory.  He 
declares  that  the  indwelling  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  is 
mediated  through  the  humanity  of  Christ.  But  he  does  not 
define  the  method  of  the  use  of  the  humanity.  His  constant  re- 
iteration is  that  justification  is  founded  alone  on  the  divine  na- 
ture, more  particularly,  on  the  divine  essence  of  Christ.  He 
says:  "My  clear,  true  and  plain  answer  is  that  Christ  is  our 
righteousness  according  to  his  divine  nature,  and  not  according 
to  his  human  nature,  although  we  cannot  find,  obtain  or  lay  hold 
on  such  divine  righteousness  apart  from  the  humanity.  But 
when  he  dwells  in  us  through  faith,  he  brings  with  himself  into 
us  his  righteousness,  which  is  his  divine  nature,  and  this  is  im- 
puted unto  us  as  if  it  were  our  own.  Yea,  it  is  bestowed  upon 
us,  and  flows  from  his  humanity  as  from  the  head  unto  us  as 
his  members,  and  moves  us  to  yield  our  members  instruments  of 
righteousness  unto  God." 

When  he  says  that  faith  justifies,  he  does  not  mean  faith  as  an 
act,  but  Christ,  rather  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  which  is 
appropriated  by  faith.  "Faith  is  as  it  were  the  empty  cup. 
Christ  is  the  potion  which  fills  it." 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  Osiander's  theory  is  catholicising  and 
mystical.  It  makes  more  of  the  Christ  in  us,  than  it  does  of  the 
Christ  for  us.  It  deprives  faith  of  its  proper  function  and  of 
its  proper  object.  According  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  faith 
lays  hold  of  the  entire  Christ  and  receives  pardon  for  the  sake 
of  the  entire  Christ.  Justification  is  out  of  grace,  through  faith, 
for  the  sake  of  Christ.  The  indwelling  of  Christ  comes  as  a  con- 
sequence of  the  objective,  forensic  act. 

Dr.  Frank  has  described  the  Osiandrian  theory  as  follows: 
"This  is  not  Pantheism  or  a  mingling  of  the  divine  and  human 
natures,  as  Osiander's  enemies  complained,  but  it  is  a  subjec- 
tivism which  shatters  the  objective  basis  of  salvation  according 
to  the  Lutheran  Church  even  to  its  very  depths,  a  mysticism,  the 
Christ  for  us  for  the  Christ  in  us,  and  unwillingly  makes  the 
consciousness  of  the  indwelling  essential  righteousness  the  basis 
of  peace  with  Cod."  * 

4.     Francis  Stancar. 

Francis  Stancar  was  born  in  IMantua  about  the  year  150L  He 
received  his  education  in  a  cloister,  and  was  well  trained  in  the 
philosophy  of  Aristotle  and  in  Scholasticism,  to  which  he  added 

*  Die  Theolof/ie  der  Concordienformel,  II.,  |>.  19.    See  Sehliisselburg,  VI., 


THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL    (ONTKOVERSY.  379 

a  considerable  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and  Chaldee  languages. 
At  the  beginning  of  the  persecution  inaugurated  by  Pope  Paul 
III.,  he,  with  other  friends  of  the  Reformation,  fled  into  Switzer- 
land, and  after  some  years  of  uncertain  residence  he  was  made 
Professor  of  the  Hebrew  Language  in  the  University  of  Konigs- 
berg.  May  8,  1551.  He  was  controversial  by  nature,  and  soon 
found  himself  in  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  Osiander.  As 
Osiander  had  laid  the  chief  stress  on  the  divine  nature  of  Christ 
and  on  the  indwelling  of  Christ  in  the  believer,  Stancar,  in  his 
resilience  from  this  extreme  went  to  the  very  opposite  extreme, 
and  denied  the  participation  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  in 
the  work  of  redemption,  and  declared  that  our  justification  is 
based  on  the  human  obedience  and  suffering  of  Christ.  He  says : 
"Christ  is  our  righteousness  only  according  to  his  human  right- 
eousness, and  not  according  to  the  divine."  His  fundamental 
principles  were:  That  God  is  one:  That  the  ^Mediator  is  not  of 
the  one :  That  the  Son  also  is  that  one  God :  That  it  behooved  the 
IMediator  to  die :  That  Christ  suffered  according  to  the  flesh. 

These  principles  are  not  all  wrong.  But  Stancar  made  a  false 
application  of  his  fundamental  principles.  His  chief  false  con- 
clusion was  that,  since  Christ  is  God.  he  cannot  be  a  Mediator 
between  God  and  man,  as  one  cannot  be  a  mediator  between  him- 
self and  another:  "The  Son  of  God  in  his  own  proper  divine 
nature,  which  he  has  in  common  with  the  Father  and  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  cannot  be  Mediator,  except  only  according  to  the 
human  nature. ' '  And  again  :  "I  exclude  the  divine  nature  from 
the  office  of  the  priesthood  and  mediation  of  Christ,  but  not  from 
the  person."  "If  the  Son  according  to  the  divine  nature  would 
be  ^Mediator,  and  would  do  something  which  tlie  Father  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  could  not  do,  then  he  would  have  a  will  and  an 
operation  different  from  that  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  consequently  another  nature,  and  thus  he  would  be 
another  God  than  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit. ' ' 

•  This  teaching,  by  excluding  the  divine  nature  of  Christ  from 
participation  in  the  offices  and  work  of  Christ,  destroys  the  per- 
sonal unity  of  Christ  and  goes  the  way  of  Nestorianism.  If  the 
divine  nature  has  no  part  in  redemption  and  does  nothing  in 
mediation,  then  it  stands  in  no  personal  relation  to  the  human 
nature.     It  is  an  abstraction,  and  redemption  is  effected  by  a 

42  et  seqq.  Thomasius,  Dogmengeschichte,  II.,  437  et  seqq.  Ritschl,  His- 
tory of  Justifieation  and  Sanctification,  Eng.  Trans.,  p.  215.  Gieseler, 
Church  History,  IV.,  469  et  seqq.  Loofs,  Bocimengeschiclite,  pp.  869  et 
seqq.     WoWev,  Andreas  Osiander.     Leben  und  Ausgewahlfe  Schriften. 


380  THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL    COXTROVEKSY. 

nature,  not  by  a  person.  Hence  it  avails  nothing  for  Stancar  to 
say  that  he  does  not  exclude  the  divine  nature  from  the  person 
of  Christ,  so  long  as  he  says  that  he  excludes  it  from  the  work 
of  Christ.  If  Christ  be  one  person,  if  the  natures  of  Christ  be 
united  in  that  one  person,  then  it  must  follow  that  whatever 
Christ  does,  he  does  as  a  person,  not  as  a  nature,  otherwise  there 
would  be  no  true  incarnation,  but  only  a  juxtaposition  of  the 
two  natures.  A  personal  union  of  two  natures  involves  a  per- 
sonal participation  of  the  two  natures  in  affections  and  actions. 
This  is  what  the  Church  has  always  taught  in  her  Christology. 
A  union  that  does  not  recognize  the  personal  participation  of 
the  natures  in  affections  and  actions  is  external  and  mechanical. 
Over  against  such  a  union  the  Church  has  always  held  that  the 
union  is  personal,  and  that  for  the  work  of  redemption  there  must 
be  a  cooperation  of  both  natures  of  Christ  in  and  by  the  one 
divine-human  person.  It  is  the  person  that  acts  through  the 
natures,  but  never  through  the  one  nature  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  other.* 

5.  The  Opposition  to  Osiander  and  Stancar. 
The  opposition  to  Osiander  and  Stancar  was  prompt  and  de- 
cided. Here  Melanchthon  and  other  Wittenbergers  and  the 
Flacianists  entered  the  lists  together  against  Osiander.  Answers 
were  made  to  his  Confession  by  the  theologians  of  AVeimar  and 
Coburg,  of  Brandenburg,  of  Pomerania,  of  Hamburg  and  Liine- 
burg,  and  by  individuals.!  In  an  academic  oration,  delivered 
in  1553,  Melanchthon  refuted  some  of  the  calumnies  of  Osian- 
der.l  In  a  private  letter  to  the  Osiandrian  Culmann  of  Niirn- 
berg,  December  11,  1552,  Melanchthon  declared:  "We  say 
here  that  man  becomes  acceptable  by  faith  on  account  of  the 
Mediator,  God  and  man,  and  that  faith  depends  not  upon  these 
new  actions,  but  upon  that  Mediator.  And  the  obedience  of  the 
Mediator  is  infinitely  to  be  preferred  to  those  actions  which  are 
clone  by  us."  §     In  1555  he  wrote  a  Confvtation  of  the  Osian- 

*  See  Schliisselburg,  IX.,  36  et  seqq.  Thomasius,  II.,  456  et  seqq.  Walch, 
Einleitung,  IV.,  V.,  171  et  seqq.  Planck,  IV.,  pp.  249  et  seqq.  In  his  De 
Trinitate  (|-  Mediatore  Stancar  says :  ' '  One  Peter  Lombard  is  of  more  au- 
thority than  a  hundred  Luthers,  two  hundred  Melanchthons,  three  hundred 
Bullingers,  four  hundred  Peter  Martyrs,  five  hundred  Calvins,  for  if  all 
these  were  brayed  in  a  mortar,  not  one  grain  of  true  theology  would  be 
squeezed  out."  He  called  Melanchthon  an  antichrist.  Walch,  ut  supra, 
p.  177. 

t  Walch,  Einleilung,  IV.,  V.,  156  et  seqq.     Gieseler,  IV.,  474-5. 

$  C.  E.  XII.,  6  et  seqq. 

§  C.  E.  VII..  1151. 


THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  381 

drian  doctrine.  He  declares  that  Osiander's  definition  of 
righteousness  is  legal,  not  Pauline;  it  is  that  by  which  we  do 
right:  "Hence  man  is  justified  by  doing  right."  On  the  con- 
trary, Paul,  David  and  all  the  saints  know  that  for  the  sake  of 
the  Mediator  they  receive  the  pardon  of  sins  freely  and  are 
reconciled  to  God,  and  become  acceptable  to  him.  Also :  "For  the 
sake  of  the  obedience  of  the  Mediator  and  on  account  of  the  death 
or  the  blood  of  Christ  are  we  justified."  He  affirms  the  neces- 
sity of  the  divine  indwelling,  but  this  must  follow  faith,  and  the 
pardon  of  sins  for  the  sake  of  the  obedience  of  the  Mediator.  He 
says  that  Osiander  repudiates  this  doctrine,  and  contends  that 
we  are  justified  by  the  indwelling  of  God,  and  not  for  the 
sake  of  the  obedience  of  the  ^Mediator.  He  thus  detracts  from  the 
honor  due  to  the  Mediator,  obscures  the  magnitude  of  sin,  de- 
stroys the  chief  consolation  of  the  pious  and  brings  them  into 
perpetual  doubt.  He  regards  the  doctrine  of  Osiander  as  false, 
injurious  to  consciences,  to  be  shunned  and  condemned.*  Others, 
as  Flacius,  ^Nlenius  and  Morlin,  were  equallj-  emphatic  in  their 
protests  against  the  doctrine  of  Osiander,  which  is  a  wide  de- 
parture from  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith 
alone,  and  is  a  close  approximation  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  just  it  ia  inf'usa. 

Not  less  positive  and  emphatic  were  Melanchthon  and  others 
in  their  rejection  of  the  position  of  Stancar  in  the  matter  of 
justification.  In  the  year  1553  Melanchthon,  while  sojourning  at 
Dessau,  wrote  an  opinion  on  the  question.  Is  Christ  Mediator  only 
according  to  the  Human  Xaturef  After  showing  from  the  Script- 
ures and  from  standard  teachers  of  the  primitive  Church 
that  Christ  is  naturally  and  essentially  God  and  man  in  one 
person,  he  quotes  Ambrose :  ' '  That  he  might  be  IVIediator  be- 
tween God  and  man,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  not  without  the 
divinity,  because  in  God  was  man,  and  God  was  in  man,  that 
from  both  he  might  be  ^Mediator. ' '  And  again :  ' '  The  passage 
in  the  Epistle  to  Timothy  does  not  exclude  the  divine  nature,  be- 
cause it  names  the  person :  One  Mediator  between  God  and 
man,  the  Man  Christ  Jesus.  But  Christ  is  the  name  of  a  person 
in  whom  are  two  natures,  as  if  to  say :  This  man  Christ  is  ]\Iedi- 
ator,  not  other  men.  as  Abraham  or  IMoses.  of  whom  it  is  also 
written  in  Deut.  5 :  I  stood  between  God  and  you,  etc.  But  this 
only  Son  of  God  is  Mediator,  because  he  by  his  assumed  human 

*  C.  R.  VIII..  .579  et  seqq.  Thoniasins.  II.,  446  et  seqq.  Schmidt.  Philipp 
Melanchthon,  pp.  5-55  et  seqq. 


382  THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL   COXTKOVERSY. 

nature  is  propitiator.  Hence  it  does  not  follow  that  the  hnman 
nature  alone  is  ^Mediator. "  *  John  Wig-and.  Calvin  and  the 
Ziirich  theologians  controverted  Stancar's  position. f 

6.     The  Sivahknts  and  Saxons. 

The  Christological  theories  of  Osiander  and  Stancar  had  refer- 
ence more  particularly  to  the  natures  of  Christ  regarded  in 
separation  from  each  other.  Naturally  the  question  of  the 
relations  of  each  nature  to  the  other  or  the  Coniniunicatio  Iclioma- 
tum,  that  is,  the  communication  of  the  properties  of  the  one 
nature  to  the  other  nature  would  soon  be  raised.  In  the  interre- 
lation of  the  natures  of  the  person  of  Christ,  the  Wlirtemberg 
divines  sought  a  philosophical  foundation  for  the  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  On  the  Chalcedonic 
Symbol  as  a  basis,  and  on  a  distinction  made  by  Luther  in  his 
Greater  Confession,!  they  developed  the  doctrine  that  the  Logos, 
from  the  very  moment  of  the  incarnation,  imparted  divine  attri- 
butes to  the  human  nature,  or  so  infused  the  divine  substance  into 
the  assumed  human  nature,  that  the  said  human  nature  possessed 
the  divine  attributes  of  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  omni- 
presence. 

John  Brentz  wrote  as  follows :  ' '  He,  true  God  and  man,  that 
is,  at  the  same  time  by  his  divinity  and  humanity  even  from  the 
beginning  of  the  incarnation,  filled  all  things.  Wherever  the 
deity  is,  there  also  is  the  humanity.  The  God  so  assumed  the 
man  into  the  unity  of  the  person  that  he  poured  into  him  all 
his  fulness,  not  only  omnipotence,  but  also  omniscience,  omni- 
potence and  omnipresence."  "He  was  omnipresent,  almighty, 
omniscient  while  he  lay  in  the  manger."  "When  Lazarus  was 
dead  he  (Christ)  sojourned  in  his  external  relations  away  from 
Bethany,  Avhile  in  his  majesty  he  was  present,  not  only  with 
that  dead  man,  but  with  all  the  dead,  in  order  to  preserve  them 
for  the  future  resurrection.  In  his  humiliation  he  hung  on 
the  cross,  while  in  his  majesty  he  darkened  the  sun,  and  kept 
alive  all  the  living.  He  lay  in  the  grave  while  filling  and 
ruling  heaven  and  earth  with  all  power. ' ' 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Ubic^uity,  according  to  Brentz,  be- 
longs to  the  humanity  of  Christ  by  virtue  of  the  hypostatic 
union,   and  is  absolute.     It  is  not  something  belonging  to  tiie 

*  C.  E.  XXIII.,  87  et  seqq. ;  93  et  seqq. 
tWalch,  Einleitung,  IV.,  V.,  180-2. 
tErl.  Ed.,  30:  206  et  passim. 


THE    (HKISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  383 

will :  it  is  something  giveu  in  the  incarnation  as  a  law  of 
Christ's  being.  In  the  Confession  of  Faith  concerning  the 
Lord's  Supper,  composed  at  Stuttgart  in  1559,  it  is  declared 
that  "the  man  Christ  fills  all  things  in  a  heavenly  manner  in- 
scrutable to  human  reason."* 

This  is  an  extreme  or  one-sided  development  of  Luther's 
doctrine  of  the  Communicatio  Idiomatum,  and  is  known  as 
"the  Sw-abian  view."  In  the  next  century  this  view  was  long 
and  ardentl}^  defended  by  the  Tiibingen  theologians  as 
Krypticism.  Opposed  to  this  was  "the  Saxon  view,"  whose 
ablest  defender  was  Martin  Chemnitz,  of  Brunswick.  Ilis  book 
entitled,  Of  the  Two  Natures  in  Christ,  is  preeminently  the 
Lutheran  classic  on  the  subject  of  which  it  treats.  In  discuss- 
ing the  exaltation  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  Chemnitz 
starts  with  a  comparison:  "God  or  the  Holy  Trinity  so  dwells 
in  believers  that  he  imparts  to  them  certain  preternatural, 
gracious,  spiritual,  heavenly,  divine  gifts.  These  are  not  the 
essential,  infinite  idiomata  of  Divinity,  but  they  are  the  graci- 
ous gifts  so  conferred  by  the  operation  of  the  Divinity  that 
they  dwell  formally,  habitually  and  subjectively  in  the  Saints, 
so  that  believers  are  called  'partakers  of  the  divine  nature'  " 
(2  Peter  1:4),  and  have  "the  commimion  of  the  H0I3'  Spirit" 
(2  Cor.  13:14).  "Therefore  when  the  Divine  nature  of  the 
Logos,  not  only  by  the  grace  of  indw'elling,  but  by  the  whole 
fulness,  dwells  personally  in  his  assumed  hiiman  nature,  which 
by  the  hypostatic  union  he  makes  his  ow'n,  it  w^ould  be  impious 
and  blasphemous  to  suppose  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
in  the  hypostatic  union  is  left  in  puris  vaturcdihus,  and  from 
that  personal  union  nothing  is  left  but  its  own  essential  idiomata, 
nothing  except  its  own  physical  powers,  faculties  and  condi- 
tions, and  nothing  beyond  its  own  natural  operations.  But  it 
is  correctly  and  scripturally  declared  by  the  scholastic  writers 
that  when  Christ  was  anointed,  according  to  the  assumed  nature, 
above  his  fellows — not  only  man,  but  also  angels — the  divine 
nature  of  the  Logos  by  its  own  divine  energy  conferred  on  and 
poured  into  the  human  nature,  with  Avhich  it  was  hypostatically 
united,  spiritual,  heavenly  and  divine  gifts,  not  only  certain 
peculiar  ones,  determined  by  a  fixed  number  and  by  measured 
grades,  as  in  the  saints,  but  all  divine  gifts  with  perfect  ful- 
ness,  superabounding   plenty — the   supreme   and   absolute   per- 

*  Thomasius,  Dog mengescMclite ,  II.,  604  et  seqq.  Also,  Pfaff,  Acta  et 
Scripta,  pp.  3.34,  342.    Wiirttemhergische  KirchengeschicMe,  p.  394. 


384  THE    CHRISTOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

fection — which  gifts  can  be  couferred  on  a  created  essence  in 
itself,  above  every  name,  number  and  measure.  For  if  Divinity 
dwelling  in  the  saints  by  grace,  as  a  true  light  spreads  the 
rays  of  his  virtues  and  pours  them  into  the  saints,  and  like  a 
living  fountain  pours  the  stream  of  his  blessings  into  believers, 
Ave  must  conclude  that  such  things  can  be  done  much  more  fully 
and  completely  in  that  human  nature  in  which  the  whole  ful- 
ness of  Deity  dwells  bodily.  But  such  infused  gifts  are  not  the 
essential  idiomata  of  the  Deity,  but  are  its  effects  extra  Divin- 

-  itatem  upon  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  so  infused,  that,  as 
the  Scholastics  say,  they  inhere  in  it  formally,  habitually,  and 
subjectively,  and  so  inform  and  perfect  the  humanity  of  Christ 
in  itself  and  according  to  itself,  that  it  becomes  the  fit,  proper 
and  rightly  disposed  organ  through  which  and  by  the  com- 
munion and  cooperation  of  which  the  divine  power  of  the  Logos 
can  exert  and  can  accomplish  the  operations  of  the  divine 
majesty.  And  these  gifts,  like  those  of  the  substance  of  the 
human  nature  to  which  they  formally  inhere,  are  in  them^ 
selves  created  and  finite. "  * 

Chemnitz  bases  his  Christolog}'  chiefly  on  the  power  of  the 
Logos,  and  on  the  principle  that  the  two  natures  form  one  per- 
sonality. The  Logos,  by  virtue  of  the  hypostatic  union,  com- 
municates certain  supernatural  or  preternatural  gifts,  as  the 
effects  of  Divinit}"  infused  extra  Divinitatem  into  the  assumed 
human  nature.  These  gifts  and"  effects,  moreover,  are  created 
and  finite.  The  human  nature  does  not  possess  an  omnipresence 
such  as  is  affirmed  by  Brentz,  but  a  multipresence  depending 
upon  the  will  of  the  Logos.     To  explain  this  infusion  of  gifts, 

'  Chemnitz  uses  the  pericJiorasis  (permeation),  and  takes  an  il- 
lustration from  the  sun,  which,  astronomically  considered,  is 
a  luminous  body,  and  imparts  light  to  other  bodies,  as  to  the 
moon.  "So  in  Christ  there  is  not  a  twofold  vivifying  life,  nor 
a  twofold  divine  power,  majesty,  wisdom,  etc. ;  but  only  one, 
which  is  essential  and  proper,  and  belongs  to  the  divine  nature 
alone.  But  by  means  of  the  union  it  is  communicated  to  the 
assumed  nature,  not  by  physical  confusion,  effusion,  equaliza- 
tion, but  by  means  of  the  union,  because  these  divine  idiomata 
exert  and  exercise  their  faculties  and  operations  on.  with  and 
through  the  assumed  nature.  And  the  flesh  quickens,  not  by 
its  own  formal  virtue;  but  by  the  virtue  of  the  Logos  dwelling 
personally  in  that  flesh  by  means  of  the  union.  Thus  the  true 
*  De  Duahus  Naturis  in   Chrisfo,  Cap.   XX. 


THE   CHRISTOLOGK'AL    COXTKOVERSY.  385 

union  is  of  such  a  nature  that  there  is  no  confusion. or  equaliza- 
tion of  the  natures  or  essential  properties. ' '  * 

Professor  Dorner  has  summarized  this  view  as  follows:  " Al- 
though the  humanity  of  Christ  remains  necessarily  limited,  his 
body  retains'  eternally  its  ori>anization  and  symmetry  and  never 
becomes  infinite.  Although  humanity  can  never,  in  any  case, 
have  infinitude  in  itself  subjectively,  formally,  inherently,  the 
divine  nature  is  notAvithstanding  communicated  to  it,  above 
and  against  its  nature  by  the  indissoluble  'Unio'  of  the  Logos. 
It  is  robbed  of  its  own  personality  (for  which  reason  he  terms 
it  a  'massa'),  but  the  hypostasis  of  the  Logos  becomes  also 
hypostasis  for  the  human  nature  which  he  takes  up  unto  him- 
self." 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  two  Christologies,  the  Swabian  and 
the  Saxon,  differ  widely  from  each  other.  They  start  from 
different  principles,  and,  as  a  consequence,  they  reach  differ- 
ent conclusions.  In  the  Swabian  view  the  Logos  is  represented 
as  entering  the  assumed  human  nature  and  as  no  longer  exist- 
ing, subsequently,  out  of  the  man  Christ.  In  the  Saxon  view 
the  Logos  imparts  his  personality^  to  the  human  nature,  and 
effects  in  it  certain  transcendent  gifts,  but  does  not  endow  it 
with  omnipotence,  omniscience  and  omnipresence.  The  former 
view,  doubtless,  is  superior  in  speculative  features.  The  latter 
has  the  advantage  in  the  practical  aspects,  since  it  exhibits  to 
us  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  who,  as  man,  draws  nigh  unto 
US:  whereas  the  other  view  so  deifies  the  humanity  of  Christ 
as  to  remove  him  from  human  fellowship,  for  it  is  difficult  to 
see  how  a  nature  which  possesses  divine  attributes  inherently 
can  be  touched  with  a  sense  of  human  infirmities.! 

'  Vt  supra,  Cap.  VI. 

t  For  further  information  in  regard  to  these  two  Christologies,  see  Dor- 
ner, Doctrine  of  the  Person  and  WorJ:  of  Christ,  Div.  II.,  176-208.  Tho- 
masiiis.  II.,  pp.  601  et  seqq.    Loofs,  Dogmengeschichte,  911,  912,  922. 

25 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

THE  SOTEEIOLOGICAL  CONTROVERSY, 

Several  of  the  subjects  treated  in  the  present  chapter  have 
already  received  incidental  attention;  but  it  seems  desirable 
to  give  them  a  more  specific  treatment,  in  order  that  it  may 
be  understood  why  they  should  be  discussed  in  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  which  was  prepared  for  the  purpose  of  putting  an 
end  to  the  controversies  which  had  come  to  exist  in  the  seventh 
and  eighth  decades  of  the  sixteenth  century.  And  in  the  inter- 
est of  brevity  Ave  have  grouped  the  subjects  now  to  be  treated 
under  Soteriology,  though  some  of  them  contain  elements  that 
bring  them  into  co'ntact  with  Anthropology  and  Christology. 
But  then  it  must  be  remembered  that  Anthropology,  Christol- 
ogy and  Soteriology  are  themselves  so  closely  related  that 
none  of  them  can  be  properly  and  profitably  treated  in  en- 
tire isolation  from  the  other  two. 

1.  The  Sacramental  Controversy. 
Even  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  career,  Luther  laid  much 
stress  on  the  sacraments  as  means  of  grace,  as  instruments 
through  which  God  bestows  salvation  on  men  who  believe.  He 
regards  baptism  as  the  first  of  the  sacraments  and  as  the  founda- 
tion of  the  whole  Christian  life.  It  is  essentially  a  promise.  On 
this  promise,  which  must  be  receiv^ed  by  faith,  depends  our  salva- 
tion.' If  this  promise  be  not  received,  baptism  profiteth  noth- 
ing. The  Christian  must  recall  his  baptism,  and  remember  the 
promise  it  contains.  "His  heart  will  be  marvelously  comforted, 
and  encouraged  to  hope  for  mercy,  if  he  fixes  his  eyes  upon 
that  divine  promise  once  made  to  him,  which  cannot  lie,  and 
which  still  continues  entire,  unchanged,  and  unchangeable  by 
any  sins  of  his,  as  Paul  says:  'If  we  believe  not,  yet  he  abid- 
eth  faithful:  he  cannot  deny  himself.'  "  (2  Tim.  2:13).  This 
truth  of  God  will  preserve  him;  and  even  if  all  other  hopes 
perish,  this,  if  he  believes  it,  will  not  fail  him.  Through  this 
truth  he  will  have  something  to  oppose  to  the  insolent  adver- 
sary; he  will  have  a  barrier  to  throw  in  the  way  of  the  sins 
which  disturb  his  conscience ;  he  will  have  an  answer  to  the 

(386) 


THE    SOTERIOLOGICAL   CONTROVERSY.  387 

dread  of  death  and  judgment;  finally,  he  will  have  a  consola- 
tion nnder  every  kind  of  temptation,  in  being  able  to  say :  ' '  God 
is  faithful  to  his  promise;  and  in  baptism  I  received  the  sign 
of  that  promise.  If  God  is  for  me  who  can  be  against  me  ? "  * 
In  his  exposition  of  Matt.  3:13-17,  in  the  year  1535,  he 
affirms  that  baptism  is  right  in  itself,  "as  good,  as  holy,  as 
divine  to  the  unbeliever  as  to  him  who  believes,"  yet  there  is 
a  great  difference  in  the  effect.  The  unbeliever  receives  no  bene- 
fit. His  heart  is  closed  so  that  he  cannot  receive  its  benefit.  But 
"whosoever  believes  that  for  him  God  has  instituted  in  baptism 
a  washing  of  regeneration,  by  which  he  is  washed  from  sins^ 
and  becomes  the  child  of  God,  receives  it  and  finds  it  as  he 
believed.  For  his  heart  is  open,  and  the  influence  of  baptism 
enters  it  with  all  its  force,  enlightens  and  warms  him,  and  con- 
stitutes out  of  the  old,  inanimate  man,  a  saint  with  a  new 
principle  of  life."  He  thus  everj-Avhere,  when  treating  of  the 
subject  associates  faith  with  the  efficacy  of  baptism.  Where 
there  is  no  faith,  there  is  no  regeneration,  no  consolation,  from 
baptism. 

These  views  in  regard  to  baptism  so  generally  prevailed 
among -the  Lutherans,  that  there  was  no  baptismal  controversy 
among  them.  All  regarded  baptism  essentially  alike  as  the  sign 
of  a  promise  of  grace,  which  is  valid  when  administered  ac- 
cording to  the  divine  appointment,  and  is  efficacious  when  re- 
ceived by  faith. 

p  The  sacramental  controversy  among  the  Lutherans  had  refer- 
ence to  the  Lord's  Supper.  From  the  beginning  of  his  reforma- 
tory career,  Luther  laid  stress  on  the  real  presence  of  the  true 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  and  on  the  oral 
eating  and  drinking  of  the  same.  As  we  have  seen,  he  em- 
phasized the  flesh  of  Christ.  He  speaks  of  "flesh  of  God," 
"flesh  of  Spirit."  This  flesh  the  mouth  eats  for  the  heart. 
The  bread  is  the  body  of  Christ.  The  bread  becomes  the  body 
of  Christ.  "The  body  is  crushed  by  the  teeth."  "What  the 
bread  does  and  suffers,  that  the  body  of  Christ  does  and  suf- 
fers."   The  body  of  Christ  is  in,  with  and  under  the  bread.f 

'^  This  extreme  objectivity  of  statement  was  called  out  in 
antithesis  to  the  extreme  subjectivity  of  the  Sacramentarians. 
Luther  believed  that  God  has  power  and  ways  by  which  he  can 

*  Babylonish  Captivity  of  the  Church,  1520. 

tErl.  Edition,  55:  75.  76;  Ibid.  30:  297.  See  Thomasius,  II.,  .532-534; 
De  Wette's  Luther's  Brief e,  IV.,  572,  569;  C.  E.  II.,  822. 


388  THE   SOTERIOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

[carry  his  word  into  effect.  "AYe  believe  that  his  body  is  there 
Uvhere  his  Word  sounds,  'this  is  my  body.'  ''  And  closely  eon- 
[nected  with  this  was  his  doctrine,  drawn  from  the  scholastic 
philosophy  of  the  repletive  presence,  according  to  which  Christ 
I  takes  up  no  space,  but  pervades  the  entire  creation:  "God  is 
not  a  being  expanded  so  long,  broad,  thick,  high,  deep,  but  a 
being  supernatural  and  inscrutable ;  one  who  is  capable  of  exist- 
ing in  every  little  grain  of  sand,  full  and  entire,  and  at  tlu' 
same  time  extends  into  all,  over  all,  and  beyond  all  creation. 
Therefore  there  is  no  need  of  diminution  or  contraction  here." 
And  of  the  eating  he  says:  "Both  mouth  and  heart  eat,  each 
according  to  its  own  measure  and  method.  The  heart  cannot 
eat  bodily.  The  mouth  cannot  eat  spiritually.  God  brings  it 
about  that  the  mouth  eats  bodily  for  the  heart,  and  the  heart 
eats  spiritually  for  the  mouth,  and  thus  both  are  satisfied  and 
saved  by  the  one  kind  of  food.  The  irrational  body  does  not 
know  that  it  is  eating  food  by  which  it  shall  live  forever,  for 
it  perceives  nothing,  but  dies  and  decays,  just  as  when  it  has 
eaten  other  food  like  an  irrational  animal.  But  the  soul  sees 
and  understands  that  the  body  must  live  eternally,  because  it 
has  partaken  of  an  eternal  food,  which  will  not  suffer  it  to 
decay  and  putrefy  in  the  grave  or  in  the  dust. ' '  * 

But  this  sacramental  eating  Luther  regards  as  inexplicable. 
He  does  not  even  wish  to  understand  it:     "We  maintain,  be- 
lieve and  teach  that  in  the  Supper  we  truly  and  bodily  eat 
the  body  of  Christ  and  appropriate  it.    But  how  this  is  done,  or 
'  how  it  is  in  the  bread,  we  do  not  and  should  not  know.     We 
should  believe   God's  Word   and  should  limit  him  neither  in 
method  nor  in  measure.     We  see  the  bread  with  our  eyes,  Init 
I  we  hear  with  our  ears  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  there. ' '  f 
r"    The  quotations  given  above  represent  Luther's  doctrine  ^f 
1  the  Lord's  Supper  up  to  and  including  the  year  1528,^  the  year 
in  which  he  published  his  Greater  Confession  on  the  Lord's 
St(p2)er.     In  the  year  1544:  he  published  his  Small  Confession 
of  tlie  Holy  Sacrament,  in  which  he  affirms  with  all  the  energy 
of  conviction  his  former  teaching  on  the  subject,  namely,  that 
Christ's  body  is  definitively,  that  is,   certainly  present  in  the 
Eucharist,  and  is  received  alike  by  a  Judas  and  by  the  saints. t 
(it  may  be  said  that  his  fundamental  position  is  not  onlj-  that 

*  Jena  Ed.  of  Works,  III.,  363.     See  also  Wangeniann,  Fva  Sancia.  .'i :  7S 
ct  seqq. 

t  Erl.  Ed.,  32:  396  et  seqq. 


r 


THE    SOTEKIOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  389 

'Christ  is  present  in  the  Eucharist,  but  that  in  the  Holy  Supper 
he  gives  himself  to  the  Coninumicant,  whether  the  latter  be  a 
believer  or  an  unbeliever.* 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Luther  represents  the  dogmatic 
view  of  the  Sacrament.  He  interprets  the  words  of  institution 
in  the  most  literal  sense.  The  Hoc  est  corpus  meum,  which  he 
wrote  down  on  the  table  at  the  ]\Iarburg  Colloqm%  was  his 
watcliAvord  through  the  remainder  of  his  life  as  in  effect  it  had 
been  previously  when  treating  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  And  yet  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  his  "repletive"  has  in  it  a  speculative 
element.  This  speculative  element  was  employed  by  the  Swa- 
bians  when  they  launched  their  doctrine  of  the  absolute  ubiquity 
of  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  But  it  cannot  be  said  that  oral 
manducation  is  a  necessary  part  of  Luther's  doctrine  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  since  it  does  not  appear  in  the  Small  Catechism,  ^-^' 
nor  in  the  Large  Catechism,  nor  in  the  Schmalkald  Articles, 
nor  did  he  desiderate  it  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  its 
Apology.  And  much  less  can  it  be  said  that  his  ' '  crushed  by  the 
teeth"  is  a  necessary  part  of  his  doctrine.  Nor  are  any  of 
these  explanatory  extra-biblical  terms  and  phrases  generic  in 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  since  there  are 
now  and  for  hundreds  of  years  have  been  Lutheran  churches 
which  have  no  such  definitive  terms  and  phrases  in  their  confes- 
sional books.  But  they  furnished  the  premises  on  which  dog- 
matists and  traditionalists  based  Romanizing  conclusions. 

]\Ielanchthon  never  departed  from  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  nor  from  the  essentials  of 
j  the  Lutheran  teaching  on  the  subject,  though  later  in  life  he 
'laid  more  emphasis  on  the  ethical  features  of  the  sacraments. 
For  proof  of  these  affirmations  we  quote  from  the  Corpus  Philip- 
2yicum,i  the  Preface  to  which  Melanchthon  wrote  only  two 
months  before  his  death.  "In  this  communion  Christ  is  truly 
and  substantially  present,  and  is  truly  administered  to  those 
who  take  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Christ  testifies  as  to 
what  is  done  in  them  and  makes  them  his  members,  and  washes 
them  with  his  own  blood,  as  Hilary  says :  '  These  things  taken 
and  appropriated  cause  us  to  be  in  Christ  and  Christ  in  us,'  "  p. 
270. 

"Christ  is  truly  present,  and  by  means  of  this  service  he 
gives  his  body  and  blood  to  him  who  eats  and  drinks.     So  say 

*Erl.  Edition,  55:  76,  77.     SchmnUcald  Articles,  Part  III.,  Art.  VI. 
t  Leipzig  Ed.,  1563. 


r 


^ 


390     ^    )  THE   SOTERIOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

also  the  ancient  writers.  Cyril  says:  'We  must  consider  that 
Christ  is  in  us  not  only  by  love,  but  also  by  natural  participa- 
tion, that  is,  he  is  present  not  only  by  efficacy,  but  also  by  sub- 
stance. .  .  .  Faith  is  necessary  to  seek  and  to  accept  the 
pardon  of  sins.  For  here  the  pardon  of  sins  is  offered  and  is 
applied  to  him  who  believes,"  pp.  563,  565.  He  declares  that 
the  principal  end  is  the  confirmation  of  faith. 

"What  is  the  Lord's  Supper?  It  is  the  communication  of 
the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  it  was  instituted 
in  the  words  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  taking  of  which  the  Son  of 
God  is  truly  and  substantially  present,  and  testifies  that  he  ap- 
plies his  blessing  to  believers,  and  that  he  assumed  human  nature 
for  our  sake,  in  order  that  he  might  make  us  who  are  united 
with  himself  by  faith,  his  own  members  and  cleanse  us  by  his 
own  blood,"  p.  810. 

"He  (Christ)  is  truly  and  substantially  present,  applies  him- 
self and  his  blessings  by  the  communication  of  his  body  and 
blood,  and  wishes  us  to  believe  that  by  his  death  he  truly  merits 
for  us  the  pardon  of  sins  and  righteousness,  and  that  he  rose 
from  the  dead  and  lives  and  makes  us  his  own  members,  and 
truly  wishes  to  be  efficacious  in  us,"  p.  909. 
~  Melanchthon  does  not  echo  Luther's  words,  nor  does  he  speak 
of  a  repletive  presence  or  of  oral  manducation,  but  without 
hesitation  and  without  equivocation  he  affirms  the  substantial 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  and  the  communication 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  to  the  communicant,  and  in  the 
emphasis  which  he  places  upon  the  sacrament  as  a  sign,  a  seal. 
a  testimony,  an  application  of  the  blessing  and  benefits  of  Christ, 
he  surpasses  Luther,*  as  might  be  expected  of  one  who  declared 
that  the  aim  of  all  his  theologizing  was  to  make  men  better. t 
['  Against  this  teaching  by  Melanchthon,  Luther  never  raised 
I  a  word  of  objection,  not  even  in  the  Small  Confession  of  1544, 
'  in  which  he  so  violently  assailed  all  those  who  had  differed  from 
him  in  his  teachings  on  the  Lord's  Supper;  but  he  actually  en- 
dorsed IMelanchthon's  teaching  on  this  and  on  all  other  subjects, 
when  in  1545  he  extolled  Melanchthon 's  Loci  Communes  above  all 
other  books  of  divinity.  Hence  we  may  say  that  Luther  and 
[Melanchthon  were  one  in  their  doctrine. of  the  Lord's  Supper — 
not  one  in  phraseology,  but  one  in  the  essential  things,  namely, 
I  in  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  in  the  communi- 

*  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum,  tit  supra,  pp.  811  et  seqq. 
t  C.  R.  T.,  722. 


THE   SOTERIOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  391 

[  cation  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  to  the  communicant  and 
in  the  necessity  of  faith  for  the  profitable  use  of  the  sacrament. 
And  if  outside  proof  were  needed  to  confirm  this  we  have  it 
in  a  letter  written  by  David  Chytraeus  in  1581,  in  which  it  is 
affirmed  that  Luther  and  ]\Ielanclithon  and  all  their  colleagues 
taught  the  doctrine  of  the  corporeal  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist ;  Chytraeus  also  takes  particular  pains  to  say :  "I 
recognize  both  Luther  and  IMelanchthon  as  taught  of  God  and 
orthodox,"  and  says  that  "Philip  always  aclmowledged  Luther 
as  his  teacher  in  theology,  and  honored  and  praised  him,"  and 
that  he  quoted  Luther's  writings  and  declared  that  he  had 
gathered  into  the  Loci  and  promulgated  the  doctrines  contained 
in  Luther's  writings.* 

But  by  and  by  the  ultra  Lutherans  emphasized  the  acci- 
dents rather  than  the  essentials  of  Luther's  teaching,  and  more 
and  more  laid  stress  on  oral  manducation,  on  the  sacramental 
union,  on  the  i7i,  cum,  sub  pane  et  vino,  that  is,  on  the  dogmatic 
and  extra-biblical  content,  and  on  the  conception  that  there  can 
be  no  substantial  reception  of  Christ  apart  from  the  sacraments, 
since  the  heavenly  gift  is  imparted  only  in,  with  and  under  the 
sacraments.  Some  of  the  theologians  of  this  party  so  connected 
Christ  with  the  bread  of  the  sacrament  as  to  decide  that  if  a 
mouse  should  eat  the  consecrated  wafer,  it  would  eat  the  very 
body  of  Christ.  Others  held  that  a  drop  of  the  consecrated 
wine  profaned  the  beard  of  a  man,  or  a  garment,  or  the  ground, 
on  which  it  chanced  to  fall:  and  even  the  fingers  of  a  minister, 
who  had  accidentally  spilled  a  little  wine  at  the  communion, 
were  cut  off  by  order  of  his  Prince,  f 

Such  remnants  of  popery,  such  superstitions,  and  such  re- 
volting cruelty,  grew  out  of  the  most  extreme  and  one-sided 
pressing  of  Luther's  view  of  the  sacramental  union,  and  were 
doubtless  closely  connected  with  the  Swabian  Christology  or 
its  premises.  Such  superstitions  and  such  cruelties  lay  not  far 
from  magical  and  ex  opere  operato  conceptions  of  the  sacra- 
ment as  an  instrument  for  imparting  salvation. 

Over  against  such  superstitions  and  absurdities  the  followers 
of  ]\Ielanchthon  insisted  more  and  more  on  the  union  of  the 
living •  Christ,  the  God-man,  with  the  believer,  and  on  the  in- 
dwelling of  Christ  in  the  believer.     Such  presence  of  Christ  was 

*  Epistolae,  pp.  106  et  seqq. 

t  For  details  and  additional  facts  of  this  kind,  together  with  references 
to  authorities,  see  Salig.  TIT.,  4fil  et  seqq.;  Galle,  Charalteristik  Mehnteh- 


392  THE    SOTERIOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

not  less  real  than  that  contended  for  by  the  rigid  adherents  of 
Luther.  It  was  less  dogmatic  but  more  religious  and  ethical.  But 
some  of  this  side  ultimately  carried  their  view  as  far  in  the 
direction  of  Calvinism  (Crypto-Calvinism)  as  the  others  had 
carried  their  view  in  the  direction  of  Romanism. 

The  two  views  and  the  two  tendencies  are  absolutely  irrecon- 
cilable with  each  other.  In  the  extreme  form  in  which  they 
appeared  in  the  seventh  decade  of  the  sixteenth  century  they 
do  not  represent  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  as 
the  same  had  been  set  forth  in  the  official  witnesses  of  the 
Lutheran  Church. 

2.     77; e  Adkiphuristic   Controversy. 

This  controversy  grew  out  of  the  Leipzig  Interim  of  15-18 
(pp.  321  et  scqq.)  ;  and  yet  it  is  closely  related  to  the  controversy 
on  the  Lord's  Supper.  It  had  to  do  with  the  nature  of  ecclesiasti- 
cal ceremonies,  or  with  the  questions,  To  what  extent  is  salva- 
tion associated  with  the  mediation  of  the  Church?  What  things 
are  essential  and  what  things  are  indifferent  in  the  mediation 
of  salvation  ?  The  older  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
had  not  condemned  the  use  of  human  ordinances:  they  had 
only  denied  that  "uniform  ceremonies"  are  necessary  as  a  mark 
of  the  true  unity  of  the  Church,  and  that  "human  ordinances 
contribute  to  the  remission  of  sins,  or  merit  salvation."  The 
Leipzig  Interim  restored  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  and 
recalled  a  very  large  part  of  the  ceremonies  connected  with  the 
Roman  Catholic  service  of  the  Mass.  These  things  were  not 
indeed  to  be  regarded  as  institutions  that  had  been  divinely 
enjoined,  but  as  institutions  that  might  be  tolerated  for  the  sake 
of  peace.  As  things  indifferent  the  Church  had  the  power  to 
admit,  to  change,  to  abolish  them ;  they  do  not  stand  in  the  way 
of  the  proper  worship  of  God ;  by  the  admission  of  these  in- 
different things  war  might  be  averted ;  afflictions  are  to  be  borne 
where  they  cannot  be  declined  without  inviting  greater  evils  and 
perils;  their  consciences  would  suft'er  if  by  rejecting  these  sec- 
ondary matters  the  Church  should  be  brought  into  great  dis- 
tress: many  of  these  adiaphora  M^ere  already  in  use  in  the 
dominions  of  the  Elector. 

Such  are  the  main  reasons  advanced  by  the  theologians  of 

thons,  pp.  449,  450;  Scliaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  Fourth  Ed.,  vol.  I.,  284-5; 
Eietschel,  Lehrhuch  der  Lihirgik,  I.,  434-5,  notes. 


THE    SOTEKIOLOGICAL    COKTKOVERSY.  393 

Wittenberg  and  Leipzig,  for  the  toleration  of  the  institntions 
sanctioned  by  the  Leipzig  Interim.* 

Flaeins  and  his  ]\lagdebnrg  helpers  started  from  the  prin- 
ciple that  in  a  case  of  confession  and  of  scandal  nothing  is 
adiapheron.  Brentz  took  the  position  that  adiaphora  in  them- 
selves considered  are  neither  good  nor  evil,  but  that  it  is  the 
circumstances  which  determine  whether  they  are  good  or  evil. 
As  an  act  of  charity  adiaphora  may  be  tolerated.  But  they 
should  be  resisted  when  an  effort  is  made  to  impose  them;  and 
also  when  the  motive  is  fear  or  policy,  for  these  show  a  lack  of 
faith  in  the  power  of  God  to  protect  his  Church ;  and  likewise 
when  they  introduce  offence,  obscure  the  confession  of  the  truth, 
and  endanger  Christian  liberty,  are  they  to  be  resisted. 

Flacius  maintained  that  the  Interim  was  the  w^ork  of  anti- 
christ, of  the  Babylonian  harlot,  and  of  the  beast  which  the 
harlot  bore.  Here  the  Emperor  and  the  Kings  are  the  servants 
of  antichrist,  that  is,  of  the  Pope.  The  Princes  are  the  servants 
of  the  Emperor  and  of  King  Ferdinand,  and  the  older  theolo- 
gians in  endorsing  these  changes  simply  yield  to  the  courts 
and  to  the  Princes.  All  these  changes  were  concessions  to  the 
papal  system,  were  introduced  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  the 
Church,  and  had  their  foundation  in  hostility  to  the  Church. 
The  Church  must  fight  for  the  liberty  which  she  has  through 
Christ.  He  declared  that  the  theologians  who  favored  the 
changes  were  inspired  by  fear  and  by  the  wisdom  of  this  world. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Saxon  theologians  were  moved 
by  the  dread  of  impending  war.  How  far  they  were  justified, 
luider  the  circumstances,  in  making  the  concessions  which  were 
made  by  them,  cannot  now  be  accurately  determined.  But 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  principles  enunciated  by  their 
opponents  embrace  the  true  evangelical  conception.  Ceremonies 
that  are  not  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  may  be  tolerated  as 
things  indifferent,  but  when  they  are  required  as  a  mark  of 
distinction,  or  as  a  necessary  adjunct  of  the  proper  worship 
of  God,  or  are  imposed  by  authority,  they  are  to  be  resisted  as 
things  contrary  to  the  Gospel.  Such  was  the  position  taken  at 
the  beginning  of  the  Reformation.  Rites  and  ceremonies  have 
no  dogmatic  significance.  Liturgies  and  orders  of  worship  were 
set  forth  as  "extetnii  rifus,  outward  works  set  forth  in  the 
Christian  Church  by  pious,  godly  Christians,  according  to  the 

*  Musaeus,  PraelecUones  in  epitomen  Formulae  Concordiae,  p.  328.  Von 
Eanke,  Y.,  59,  especially  note  1. 


394  THE   SOTERIOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY. 

need  or  circumstances  of  persons  and  places  by  virtue  of  our 
Christian  freedom."  In  the  AVittenberg  Order  of  1533  it  is 
expressly  declared  that  "ceremonies  are  not  necessary  laws, 
but  the  pastor  has  the  power  to  act  in  such  matters  as  may 
serve  for  the  best. ' '  *  This  has  always  been  regarded  as  a 
fundamental  principle  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  the  practice 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  harmonizes  with  the  principle.  At 
Frankfort  the  Lutherans  declined  to  inaugurate  uniform  cere- 
monies, for  the  two-fold  reason  that  such  an  enactment  is  con- 
trary to  Christian  liberty,  and  could  not  be  enforced.f 

But  the  Adiaphoristic  Controversy  lost  its  significance  with 
the  conclusion  of  the  Augsljurg  Religious  Peace  of  1555,  by  which 
full  religious  freedom  was  granted  to  the  adherents  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  both  in  doctrine  and  in  worship.  And  yet  at 
the  Diet  of  Worms  in  1557,  Adiaphorism  was  brought  forward 
by  the  Flacianists  as  a  subject  to  be  condemned.  In  the  For- 
mula Consensus,  written  by  Melanchthon  at  "Worms  in  the  same 
year,  the  Interim  is  expressly  condemned.! 

3.     The  Majoristic  Controversy. 

George  Major,  born  1502,  died  1574,  some  time  professor  and 
pastor  at  AA^ittenberg,  advanced  the  proposition  that  good  works 
are  necessary  to  salvation.  The  proposition  was  based  on  the 
oft-repeated  declaration  of  the  older  reformers  that  good  works 
are  the  necessary  fruits  of  justification,  that  is,  that  good  works 
follow  justification  by  an  ethical  necessity.  Luther  maintained 
that  grace  is  a  powerful,  living,  active  thing,  that  leads,  begets, 
works  all  things  in  man,  and  makes  itself  felt  and  experienced 
in  man. §  And  Melanchthon :  "Eternal  life  is  not  bestowed  on 
account  of  the  excellence  of  good  work.  And  yet  good  works 
are  necessary  to  eternal  life,  because  they  ought  necessarily  to 
follow  reconciliation. "  1 1  But  by  good  works.  Alelanchthon  meant 
not  only  civil  duties,  but  such  spiritual  affections  as  the  fear  of 
God,  confidence,  worship,  love  and  the  like  affections. 

Major's  formal  declaration  was:     "I  indeed  confess  that  I 

*  Eichard  and  Painter,  Christian  Worship,  First  Ed.,  pp.  212  et  seqq. 

t  Hiiffell,  Evang.  Geistliclie,  II.,  111. 

t  C.  R.  IX.,  293 ;  .368.  For  the  literature  of  this  subject  see  Walch,  FAn- 
leitung,  IV.,  Y.,  §§  xhdii.-Ls%iii.  For  the  history  see  Preger,  Matthias 
Flacius  Illyricus,  I.,  13.5  et  seqq.;  Planck,  Geschichte,  IV.,  208  et  seqq. 
Schliisselburg,  XIII.,  71  et  seqq.  TJnscMMige  Nachrichten,  Anno  1702,  pp. 
504  et  seqq. 

§  Seeberg,  Bogmengeschichte,  II.,  242-3. 

lie  E.  IX..  429. 


THE    SOTERIOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY^  395 

have  hitherto  taught  and  to  the  end  of  my  life  will  teach  as 
follows :  That  good  works  are  necessary  to  salvation :  Also 
that  no  one  will  ever  be  saved  without  good  works :  That,  in 
a  word,  it  is  impossible  for  anyone  to  be  saved  without  good 
works.  Hence  should  anyone,  even  though  he  be  an  angel  from 
heaven,  teach  otherwise,  let  him  be  anathema. ' '  *  INIelanchthon 
was  satisfied  with  the  propositions :  ' '  New  obedience  is  neces- 
sary,"  and:  "New  obedience  is  a  debt,  for  the  reason  that  it 
is  the  unchangeable  order  that  the  rational  creature  obey  God," 
and  advised  the  omission  of  the  words :  "To  salvation,  because 
this  addition  points  to  merit,  and  obscures  the  doctrine  of  grace ; 
for  it  abides  true  that  man  is  righteous  before  God  and  is  an 
heir  of  eternal  salvation,  out  of  grace,  for  the  sake  of  Christ, 
alone  through  faith  in  him."t 

The  proposition  of  Major  was  opposed  by  Nicholas  von  Ams- 
dorf,  who  declared  that  "whoever  should  teach  and  preach 
that  good  works  are  necessary  to  salvation  is  a  Pelagian,  a 
Mameluke,  and  a  denier  of  Christ,  and  has  the  same  spirit  as 
Mensing  and  "Witzel,  who  defended  the  same  proposition  against 
Dr.  Martin  of  holy  memory."  He  also  declared  that  Major 
had  the  spirit  and  the  mind  of  the  Papists,  and  that  his  proposi- 
tion is  godless,  dangerous  and  suspicious.  1  Finally  he  even  went 
so  far  as  to  declare  that  good  works  are  injurious  to  salvation, 
and  that  both  Paul  and  Luther  had  so  taught  and  preached.  § 
This  in  the  year  1559.  And  yet  earlier  he  had  declared:  "I 
have  always  taught  that  we  ought  to  perform  good  works."  [| 

Flacius  also  engaged  in  the  controversy  with  his  usual  sarcasm 
and  scurrility.  In  one  of  his  attacks  he  calls  Major  the  great- 
est reconciler  of  Christ  and  Belial,  or  antichrist  and  champion 
of  the  New  Interims.  Another  article  he  entitles :  Against  the 
Evangelist  of  the  Holy  Chorrock,  Dr.  Geitz  Major.]^  And  in 
his  Censure  of  the  Last  Will  of  Dr.  Major  he  declares  that  "the 
Papists  teach  more  correctly  in  regard  to  good  works  than  the 
Majorists. "  ** 

The  clergy  of  Liibeck,  Hamburg,  Liineburg  and  Magdeburg 
united  in  an  Opinion  against  Major's  proposition.  They  de- 
clare that  it  is  dangerous  and  absurd  to  teach  that  good  works 

*  Schliisselburg,  "\r[I.,  30.    See  also  Preger,  i/t  supra,  I.,  357  et  seqq..  361. 

tC  R.  IX.,  497-9. 

t  Schliisselburg,  VII.,  210. 

§  Salig,  I.,  642 ;  Thomasius,  II.,  482. 

II  C.  R.  IX.,  843. 

if  Preger,  I.,  iit  supra.  361 ;  II.,  550. 

**  Schliisselburg,  VII.,  266  et  seqq. 


396  THE    SOTEEIOLOGICAL    CONTKOVEKSY. 

are  necessary  to  salvation,  though  they  confess  that  good  works 
follow  faith  spontaneously,  just  as  the  good  tree  spontaneously 
brings  forth  good  fruits.*  Also  the  ]\Iansfeld  theologians  wrote  an 
Opinion  and  Confession  in  which  they  declare  that  Major's 
proposition  obscures  the  doctrine  of  God's  grace  and  Christ's 
merit.f  A  Synod  at  Eisenach,  1556,  pronounced  Major's  propo- 
sition false  in  faro  justificationis,  but  allowable  in  faro  legis. 
Very  generally  the  proposition  was  condemned,  though  a  few 
individuals  defended  it.J 

The  question  at  issue  was  really  this:  Are  men  justified  by 
faith  alone,  without  w^orks,  for  the  sake  of  Christ?  Major 
answered  that  men  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  without  works, 
for  the  sake  of  Christ.  But  he  did  not  distinguish  sufficiently 
between  justification  and  renovation,  or  between  Christ  for  us 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  us  as  the  result  of  justification.  He  identi- 
fied salvification  and  justification.  He  says  that  salvification 
in  this  life  "consists  in  the  remission  of  sins  and  in  the  imputa- 
tion of  righteousness,  in  the  gift  and  renovation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  in  the  hope  of  eternal  life  freely  bestowed  for  the 
sake  of  Christ.  This  salvification  and  justification  are  only 
begun  and  imperfect :  Because  in  those  who  are  saved  by  faith 
and  justified,  there  still  remain  sin,  the  depravity  of  nature, 
the  terrors  of  sin  and  of  the  law%  the  bite  of  the  old  serpent, 
death  and  all  human  miseries;  and  thus  by  faith  and  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  we  begin  to  be  justified,  to  be  sanctified  and  saved. 
We  are  not  yet  perfectly  justified  and  saved.  It  remains,  there- 
fore, that  we  be  perfectly  justified  and  saved."  §  He  established 
no  causal  relation  between  justification  and  good  works.  But 
by  and  by  he  modified  his  proposition  so  as  to  read :  ' '  Good 
works  are  necessary  for  retaining  salvation."  |j 

And  now  turning  our  eyes  back  so  as  to  review  for  a  moment 
the  controversies  described  briefly  in  Chapters  XX.,  XXI., 
XXII.,  we  find  that  they  are  not  all  connected  with  specific 

*  Sehliisselbiirg,  VII.,  592,  603,  604. 

t  Schliisselburg,  VII.,  222  et  seqq. 

t  For  the  literature  on  the  subject,  see  Schliisselburg,  vol.  VII. ;  Walch, 
Einleitung,  IV.,  V.,  188  et  seqq.;  Planck,  IV.,  570  et  seqq.;  Salig,  I.,  637 
et  seqq. 

§  Schliisselburg,  VII.,  348. 

II  Planck,  IV.,  V.,  545.  Melanchthon  earnestly  counselled  that  the  propo- 
sition :  ' '  Good  works  are  necessary  to  Salvation, ' '  be  dropped,  because  it 
was  abused  by  the  Papists.  C.  E.  VIII.,  p.  194.  In  his  letter  to  the  Senate 
of  Nordhausen,  January  13,  1555,  he  ad\ases  the  preachers  to  cease  discuss- 
ing Dr.  Major  and  his  affairs  from  the  pulpit.  The  proposition  is  ambiguous 
and  the  dispute  has  long  disturbed  the  Church.  C.  E.  VIII.,  410.  Gieseler, 
IV.,  438,  note  13. 


THE    SOTKKIOLOCaCAL    C'ONTKOVKKSY.  397 

parties  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Some  of  them  are  to  be  re- 
garded rather  as  jihenomena  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  such  as 
might  arise  at  any  time  and  be  discussed  for  awhile,  only  to 
disappear  again.  Such  was  the  dispute  with  Osiander,  Avhieh 
lasted  from  1549  to  1557,  in  which  Melanchthon  and  Flacius 
were  on  the  same  side.  The  same  is  true  in  regard  to 
the  error  of  Stancar.  The  adiaphoristic  controversy  began  / 
to  disappear  with  the  conclusion  of  the  Religious  Peace 
of  Augsburg  in  1555.  The  Controversy  on  Free-will,  which 
began  in  1555,  and  was  the  most  bitter  of  all  the  Lutheran 
controversies,  lasted  till  1567.*  That  on  original  sin  began  in 
1560  and  lasted  till  1575.  The  Majoristic,  or  that  on  the  neces-  ^ 
sity  of  good  works  to  salvation,  which  by  way  of  reaction  brought 
up  again  the  Antinomian  Controversy,  extended  from  1551  to  > 
1562,  though  echoes  of  some  of  these  controversies  continued 
to  be  heard  at  intervals  even  after  they  had  lost  their  significance 
for  the  Church  in  general. 

Hence  in  the  eighth  decade  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the 
only  existing  controversies  of  real  significance  to  the  Lutheran 
Church  was  that  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  chiefly  as  it  was  con- 
nected with  the  doctrine  of  the  communicntio  idiomatnm,  and  » 
that  on  Free-will. t  The  controversies,  other  than  these  two, 
had  virtually  run  their  course,  before  or  early  in  the  beginning 
of  the  eighth  decade  of  the  century,  and  had  died,  or  were 
dying,  a  natural  death,  though  many  alienations  yet  existed. 
But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  sixth,  seventh  and  eighth 
decades  of  the  century  mark  a  period  of  burning  strife  in  the 
Lutheran  Church.  The  amount  of  bitterness,  estrangement, 
suspicion  and  persecution  engendered  by  those  controversies, 
cannot  be  understood  until  one  has  read  a  large  amount  of  the 
polemical  literature  of  the  times.  The  language  employed  in 
many  instances  was  that  of  caricature,  denunciation  and 
slander.  Some  even  doubted  whether  their  opponents  could  be 
saved.     Some  were  impi'isoned,  and  some  were  banished,  simply 

*  This  is  the  date  usually  given  by  historians  for  the  cessation  of  the 
controversy  on  Free-will  (Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  I.,  270)  ;  yet  as  a 
matter  of  fact  loud  echoes  of  the  controversy  still  lingered.  It  was  scheduled 
for  discussion  at  the  Altenburg  Colloquy.  The  Saxon  Universities  declare 
themselves  most  decidedly  against  the  Flaeian  views,  and  rejieat  the  views 
that  had  been  enunciated  and  maintained  by  Melanchthon.  See  Endlicher 
Bericht,  fol.  70  et  seqq.  Also  Gieseler.  Church  Hisforf/.  IV.,  482.  In  the 
Confessio  TVittenbergica,  1570,  we  have  the  Melanchthonian  view  in  clear 
and  distinct  expression. 

t  Gieseler,  Chtireh  History,  IV.,  481-2.  It  cannot  be  said  that  there  was 
a  perfect  understanding  in  regard  to  Justification. 


398  THE    SOTERIOLOGICAL   COJy^TROVERSY. 

because  their  theological  views  did  not  please  a  ruler  or  his 
narrow-minded  and  vindictive  courtiers.  And  the  whole  dis- 
tress was  aggravated  by  reason  of  the  territorial  divisions  of 
Germany,  and  by  the  jealousies  of  the  Princes,  their  rivalries 
of  each  other,  and  their  atrocious  tryanny.  In  many  cases  where 
the  Princes  were  summi  episcopi  of  the  Church  they  both  used 
and  abused  their  power  for  the  promotion  of  political  aims  and 
ends.  Too  frequently  they  eared  for  their  ovm  things  and  not 
for  the  things  of  Christ  and  of  his  Church.  As  a  consequence  of 
the  prevailing  spirit  of  strife  and  of  the  political  divisions  and 
antagonisms  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Germany  was  weak  where 
it  ought  to  have  been  strong.  Instead  of  confounding  her 
enemy  by  a  bold  and  united  front,  she  excited  the  ridicule  and 
contempt  of  her  enemy  by  her  divisions  and  internecine  con- 
tentions. It  was  the  fabled  fight  of  the  Cadmean  brothers  enacted 
with  terrible  reality  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  Eeligious  Peace  of  Augsburg,  the  Lutheran  Church 
Avas  growing  weaker,  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  was 
growing  stronger. 

AVas  this  the  legitimate  outcome  of  what  the  Lutherans  did 
at  Augsburg  in  1530  when  the  Lutheran  Church  was  born?  By 
no  means.  Had  the  spirit  that  prevailed  at  Augsburg  in  1530 
continued  to  prevail,  and  the  spirit  that  created  and  sustained 
the  Schmalkald  League,  the  divisions  and  distractions  and  aliena- 
tions of  the  sixth,  seventh  and  eighth  decades  of  the  sixteenth 
century  could  not  have  entered  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  con- 
dition of  affairs  that  confronts  us  is  due  primarily  to  the 
worldly  ambitions  of  Princes,  and  secondarily,  to  the  jealousies 
of  a  few^  theologians.  Maurice  and  some  others  betrayed  the 
interests  of  Lutheranism,  and  brought  on  the  catastrophe  of 
Miihlberg.  This  was  followed  by  the  two  Interims  which  were 
preeminently  the  work  of  the  Princes  and  their  counsellors. 

Already  before  the  death  of  Luther  the  growing  influence  of 
Melanchthon  in  the  Church,  and  Luther's  avowed  esteem  for 
him,  had  excited  the  jealousy  of  such  men  as  John  Agricola  and 
Nicholas  von  Amsdorf.  They  did  not  like  to  see  blaster  Philip 
preferred  to  themselves.  The  fortunes  of  the  Schmalkald  War, 
which  had  left  IVIelanchthon  and  so  many,  of  his  pupils  in  place 
at  "Wittenberg  and  Leipzig,  and  had  driven  others  into  exile — 
"exiles  of  Christ,"  "exiles  of  God" — ^had  aroused  the  feeling  of 
jealousy  and  antipathy  in  the  breasts  of  such  men  as  Nicholas 
Gallus,  Matthew  Judex,  John  Wigand  and  others  of  similar  fate 


THE   SOTERIOLOGICAL    CONTROVERSY.  399 

and  temperament.  All  these  were  led  by  Flaeius,  whose  nature 
was  ever  for  war  and  never  for  peace.  In  their  reaction  against 
Melanchthon.  and  in  their  just  hate  of  Maurice,  they  called 
Luther  "the  third  Elias,-''  "the  prophet  of  God,"  and  with- 
out qualification  they  called  Luther's  doctrine  "the  doctrine  of 
Christ."*  But  they  took  as  their  premises  some  of  Luther's 
extreme  and  incidental  sentences  and  propositions,  and  drew 
from  them  conclusions,  and  constructed  upon  them  arguments, 
from  which  Luther  would  have  turned  with  reprehension,  as 
for  instance  that  sin  is  the  very  essence  of  man,  that  good  works 
are  detrimental  to  salvation,  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
is  ubiquitous,  that  the  law  has  no  authority  over  Christians. 

These  are  some  of  the  un-Lutheran  extremes  to  which  some 
of  the  anti-]\Ielanchthon  leaders  were  driven  by  their  modes  of 
argumentation  and  by  their  partisanism.  We  do  not  say  that 
they  did  no  good  by  their  contentions.  Already  we  have  said 
that  they  did  good  service  in  the  Interimistic  Controversy.  But 
the  amount  of  good  done  by  them  is  vastly  outweighed  by  the 
evil  done  by  them.  They  not  only  introduced  a  spirit  of  con- 
troversy into  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  still  lives  and  from 
time  to  time  incites  to  internecine  strife;  but  by  their  one- 
sided and  exaggerated  Lutherism  they  promoted  a  one-sided 
and  exaggerated  Melanchthonism.  Their  supreme  aim  was  to  de- 
stroy ]\[elanchthon's  influence  in  the  Church  which  he  had  helped 
to  create,  and  to  enthrone  the  Luther  of  their  own  narrowed 
polemical  conceptions  as  autocrat  on  the  throne  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  But  Luther  and  ^Melanchthon  were  too  deeply  im- 
bedded in  the  heart  of  the  German  people  to  be  sundered  by 
malice  and  detraction — the  great-souled  Luther  from  the  ten- 
der-hearted ]\Ielanehthon,  the  prophet  from  the  preceptor,  the 
man  of  war  from  the  man  of  peace.  Historical  retribution  hung 
in  the  air,  and  soon  it  descended  upon  those  who  had  been  most 
active  in  strifes  and  contentions.  ]\[elanchthonism  was  rehabili- 
tated— not  fully,  but  it  has  been  restored  to  an  honorable  place 
by  the  side  of  Lutherism.  Whither  the  one  goes,  the  other  goes, 
where  the  one  lodges,  the  other  lodges.  Together  they  constitute 
Lutheranism  qui  nianft  in  aeternum. 

*  Magdeiurg  Confession. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION. 

The  controversies,  distractions  and  alienations  described  in 
the  four  preceding  chapters  created  a  feeling  of  sadness  in  the 
hearts  of  all  true  disciples  of  Luther  and  ^lelanchthon.  Even 
the  Princes,  not  a  few  of  whom  cared  more  for  themselves  than 
for  the  Church,  lamented  the  situation.  By  the  close  of  the 
sixties  and  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventies  the  feeling  pre- 
vailed widely  that  efforts  should  be  made  to  restore  concord. 
Fortunately  there  were  learned  theologians  who  had  taken  little 
or  no  i^art  in  the  controversies.  Among  these  were  Jacob 
Andreae  of  Tiibingen,  ^lartin  Chemnitz  of  Brunswick,  David 
Chytraeus  of  Rostock,  and.  with  some  qualifications.  Nicholas 
Selneccer  of  Leipzig,  then  of  Wolfenbiittel,  then  of  Leipzig 
again.  Also  there  were  Princes  who  had  had  little  or  no  associa- 
tion with  the  rivalries  and  quarrels  of  the  Saxons,  such  as  Duke 
Julius  of  Brunswick,  Duke  Christopher  of  AViirtemberg,  Land- 
grave William  of  Hesse-Cassel,  and  Prince  George  Ernest  of 
Plenneberg.  These  were  suljsequently  joined  by  Augustus  of 
Saxony,  and  John  George  of  Brandenburg.  But  it  was  not 
easy  to  make  a  lieginning,  though  it  was  plainly  seen  that  at 
least  three  things  must  be  included  in  any  peace  negotiations 
that  were  expected  to  bring  permanent  concord.  First :  All 
good  and  true  Lutherans,  and  all  good  and  true  IMelanch- 
thonians  must  be  separated  from  those  of  both  sides  who  had 
gone  to  incorrigible  extremes.  Secondly :  That  the  unreduced 
differences  in  regard  to  Justification,  Free-will  and  the  Person 
of  Christ  must  be  eliminated.  Thirdly :  That  Crypto-Cal- 
vinism,  which  had  crept  into  parts  of  the  Lutheran  Church, 
must  be  expelled. 

At  first,  efforts  at  pacification  were  made  by  those  who  had 
been  most  violently  engaged  in  controversy,  as  for  instance, 
at  the  Diet  of  Worms  in  1557.  Here  the  method  adopted  by 
the  Flacianists  was  by  introducing  wholesale  condemnations  of 
those  charged  with  deviations  from  the  Lutheran  doctrines.  But 
this  method  not  only  failed;  it  widened  the  breach.  At  Frank- 
fort the  next  year  a  better  method  was  adopted.     On  the  basis 

(400) 


EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION.  401 

of  the  Scriptures,  the  three  Ecumenical  Creeds,  the  Augsburg 
Confession  and  the  Apology,  the  assembled  Princes  set  forth 
"a  summary  and  body  of  doctrine."  which  was  to  be  preached 
and  taught  in  their  churches  in  opposition  to  erroneous  opinions 
and  to  those  sects  which  resisted  the  truth.  Only  four  Articles 
are  treated,  viz.,  Justification  before  God,  the  Relation  of  Good 
Works  to  Salvation,  the  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  Adiaphora  in  the  Church.  Though  the  Frankfort  Recess 
was  signed  by  three  Electors,  one  Count,  the  Duke  of  Wiirtem- 
berg,  and  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  yet  its  only  effect  was  that 
it  called  forth  the  Weimar  Confutation  Book*  The  Naum- 
burg  Diet  of  Princes,  which  was  undertaken  for  the  purpose  of 
uniting  all  the  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  left  no 
permanent  results  in  the  direction  of  Lutheran  union. 

The  times  were  not  yet  ripe  for  concord.  So  long  as  John 
Frederick  the  Second  continued  to  be  Duke  of  Saxony,  and 
while  Flacianism  yet  reigned  at  Jena  and  at  the  Weimar  court, 
concord  could  not  be  effected.  And  neither  side,  neither  the 
Flacianists  nor  the  Philippists,  had  reached  the  conclusions  in- 
volved in  their  own  premises.  Hence  neither  side  was  con- 
quered, and  neither  side  was  ready  to  lay  down  its  arms.  But 
passing  years  brought  political,  ecclesiastical  and  theological 
changes,  and  with  these  changes  obstacles  to  Lutheran  concord 
began  to  disappear,  though  even  in  the  late  sixties  and  in  the 
early  seventies  there  was  no  abatement  of  fury  between  the 
ducal  and  the  electoral  theologians,  as  witness  the  Altenburg 
Colloquy  (1568-9)  and  the  Corpus  Tlniringiciim  (1571). 

1.  Wittenherg  and  Zerhst. 
All  beginnings  are  difficult.  But  gradually  the  theologians 
and  the  Princes  who  had  not  been  involved,  at  least,  not  seriously, 
in  the  controversies  and  rivalries  of  the  times,  contrived,  at 
first  obscurely  and  tentatively,  to  inaugurate  measures  of  pacifi- 
cation. Already  in  1562  Jacob  Andreae  had  mediated  in 
Thuringia.  But  the  real  beginning  of  pacificatory  efforts  are 
to  be  connected  with  the  Visitation  of  the  Brunswick  lands 
ordered  by  Duke  Julius  in  1568,  and  conducted  by  Andreae  and 
Chemnitz,  who  together  composed  the  Brunswick  Church  Order  of 
1569,  which  has  as  doctrinal  basis  or  Corpus  Doctrinae,  besides 
the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  three  Ecumenical  Creeds,  the  Augs- 

*  See  C.  R.  TX..  489  et  seqq. 
2ft 


402  EFFOKTS    AT    PACIFICATION. 

burg  Confession  as  explained  in  the  Apology,  in  the  Schmal- 
kald  Articles,  in  the  Catechism  and  in  Luther's  writings. 

During  the  Visitation  Andreae  interested  Duke  Julius  in 
his  plans  for  Lutheran  pacification,  and  showed  him  the  articles 
which  he  had  brought  with  him  from  Swabia  and  which  treated 
Of  Justification  ly  Faith;  of  Good  Works;  Of  Free-will;  Of 
Adiaphora;  Of  the  Lord's  Supper.  AVhen  the  Duke  suggested 
that  some  of  his  propositions  were  too  severe,  Andreae  modified 
them,*  and  January  9,  1569,  he  came  to  Wittenberg.  Here  he 
met  George  Major  and  found  him  favorable  to  his  plans  of 
pacification.  Subsequently  he  visited  numerous  lands  and  found 
general  approval  of  his  plans  of  pacification.  In  the  Summer 
of  the  same  year  he  visited  the  Elector  of  Saxony  with  letters 
of  commendation  frx>m  Duke  Julius  and  Landgrave  William 
of  Hesse. t  The  Elector  was  so  pleased  with  his  plans  and 
propositions  that  he  sent  him  to  Wittenberg  with  a  letter  com- 
manding the  theologians  there  to  confer  with  him  on  the  sub- 
ject of  unity  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  1  He  arrived  at  Witten- 
berg, August  12th,  and  on  the  18th  he  held  an  interview  with 
the  tjieologians,  who  told  him  that  the  only  basis  of  agreement 
was  the  Corpus  Docirinac  PhUippicum.  On  the  eleventh  Sun- 
day after  Trinity,  from  the  pulpit  of  the  city  church,  he  de- 
clared his  agreement  with  the  Wittenbergers  in  all  the  articles 
of  faith,  and  said :  Symbolum  nostri  consensus  debet  esse  Cor- 
pus doctrinae  vestrarum  ecclesiarum,  and  again:  "I  will  stake 
my  life  on  your  Corpus  Doctrinae."  § 

The  Wittenbergers  expressed  their  delight  with  Andreae 's 
sermon,  "and  in  the  most  friendly  and  fraternal  manner  with 
prayer  sent  him  on  his  mission  in  the  name  of  the  Almighty 
God."  The  Wittenbergers  also  gave  him  a  testimonial, ||  in 
which  they  refer  to  their  Corpus  Doctrinae  and  to  Andreae 's 

*  See  .Tohaiiiisen  in  Zeitsclirift  filr  Hist.  Theologie.  1853,  p.  346.  Schiitz, 
Vita  D.  Chytraei,  II.,  162  et  seqq.  The  Articles  in  Hntter,  Cap.  II.,  and  in 
Heppe,  II.,  251  ct  seqq. 

t  Walch,  Introductio,  p.  709. 

t  Letter  in  Hutter,  Cap.  II.,  p.  16b. 

§  Johannsen,  tit  supra,  p.  352;  Calinich,  pp.  20,  34;  Walch,  Introductio, 
p.  709.  Also  Andreae 's  Bericht,  from  which  almost  everything  contained  in 
this  section  is  taken  in  condensed  form.  Unsclnildige  Nachricliten,  Anno 
1718,  p.  221.  See  also  Andreae 's  letters  to  Landgrave  William  of  Hesse  in 
Neudecker's  Neue  Beitrage,  pp.  160,  172,  183,  187.  In  these  letters  we 
have  accounts,  in  some  cases  minute,  of  Andreae 's  movements  and  of  his 
theological  position  in  these  initial  efforts  of  pacification.  When  Andreae 
visited  Wittenberg  the  first  time  all  the  Wittenberg  theologians,  except 
Major,  were  attending  the  Altenburg  Colloquy^ 

II  Hntter,  pp.  31-32;  Calinich,  ut  supra,  p.  2'0. 


EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION.  403 

sermon,  though  they  do  not  express  a  judgment  on  his  articles, 
and  subsequently  they  expressed  themselves  emphatically  against 
the  doctrine  of  ubiquity. 

Leaving  Wittenberg,  Andreae  visited  in  quick  succession  the 
principal  rulers  of  Northern  Germany  and  Lower  Saxony,  and 
the  maritime  cities,  including  also  the  widowed  queen,  Dorothea, 
of  Denmark  and  Norway.  He  reports  that  he  found  the 
preachers  and  the  teachers  unanimous  in  their  approval  of  his 
articles  as  in  fundamental  agreement  with  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. Finally  he  went  to  AA^eimar.  Here  he  was  violently 
denounced  from  the  court  pulpit  by  Tilemann  Heshuss  as 
one  ' '  who  has  before  him  the  ungodly  purpose  of  uniting  Christ 
and  Belial,  light  and  darkness,  lies  and  truth,  righteousness  and 
unrighteousness,  God  and  the  devil,  in  one  mass."  He  also 
Avarns  the  people,  high  and  low,  against  Andreae,  "as  against 
the  devil,  who,  by  his  conciliations,  has  already  harassed  the 
poor  Church  of  Christ  in  many  places."  And  the  Jena  theolo- 
gians, even  before  they  had  heard  Andreae,  or  had  received  a 
report  of  his  work,  published  manifestoes,  in  Avhieh  they  declare 
their  faith,  and  denounce  Andreae,  heaping  upon  him  such 
nicknames  and  invectives  in  barbarous  German,  and  in  other 
barbarous  linguistic  compounds,  as  do  show  that  their  authors 
were  malignant  at  heart.  Andreae  had  agreed  with  the  Wit- 
tenbergers.  That  was  the  unpardonable  sin.  The  Weimarians 
would  not  agree  with  him,  lest  they  show  to  all  the  world  that 
their  accusations  of  the  Wittenbergers  had  been  false  and 
groundless.* 

But  Andreae  was  so  encouraged  by  the  reception  accorded 
him  in  Northern  Germany  and  in  Lower  Saxony,  that  he  pro- 
posed to  the  Princes  that  they  call  a  conference  of  theologians 
who  should  consider  his  projects  of  union.  Accordingly,  a  con- 
ference was  called,  chiefly  at  the  instance  of  Duke  Julius  and 
the  Landgrave  of  Hesse.  Andreae  was  commissioned  to  name 
the  theologians  who  should  be  sent  to  the  Conference.  May 
7  (1570)  the  Conference  met  at  Zerbst  in  Anhalt,  with  twenty- 
one  theologians  present  representing  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  the 
Duke  of  Brimswick.  the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  i\Iargrave  John 
of  Brandenburg,  the  Princes  of  Anhalt  and  the  cities  of  Lower 
Saxony.    The  next  day  they  agreed  on  the  Scriptures,  the  three 

'  Calinich.  pp.  20-24;  Johannsen,  p.  355;  Eehtmeyer,  III.,  Beylagen,  pp. 
173-5;  Gieseler,  IV.,  p.  465;  Andreae 's  Bericht,  litera  H,  pp.  ii.  et  seqq. 
Heshuss 's  sermon  was  printed  at  Jena  in  1570.  See  Lentz,  Geschiciite  der 
ChristlicJien  Homileiil-,  who  gives  extracts,  II.,  51-4. 


404  '  EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION. 

ancient  Creeds,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  the  other  writings  embraced  in  the  Cor- 
pus Doctrinae  and  the  writings  of  Luther  as  a  norm  of  doc- 
trine.* But  this  norm  in  reality  marks  no  advance  in  the  direc- 
tion of  pacification.  It  explained  nothing;  it  created  nothing; 
it  left  things  exactly  where  they  had  been.  The  Wittenbergers 
would  not  give  up  their  Corpus  Doctrinae,  and  they  formally 
declared  that  they  received  the  new  norm  only  in  so  far  as  it 
agrees  with  their  Corpus  Doctrinae. 

Andreae  then  made  a  Report  (Bericht)  to  the  Emperor  and 
Princes  on  his  pacification  efforts.  He  represents  that ' '  at  Zerbst 
Christian  unity  has  been  attained,"  expresses  his  satisfaction 
with  the  views  of  the  Wittenbergers  on  the  person  of  Christ, 
says  that  "all  the  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  are  ex- 
plained in  a  Christian  manner  in  the  writings  of  Dr.  Luther, 
of  Master  Philip  Melanchthon,  especially  in  the  book  printed 
under  the  title  Corpus  Doctrinae,  and  in  his  other  useful  and 
glorious  writings,  and  in  the  writings  of  Brentz,  and  others ; ' ' 
calls  "Luther  and  Melanchthon  our  dear  fathers  and  precep- 
tors." 

To  this  Report  the  Leipzig  and  Wittenberg  theologians  make 
reply  to  the  effect  that  Andreae  has  placed  them  in  a  false  light 
before  the  world ;  that  his  declaration  that  there  is  fundamental 
agreement  between  themselves  and  the  Flacianists,  "is  a  golden 
dream":  that  his  plan  of  pacification  is  only  cura  palliativa ; 
that  he  has  introduced  into  Saxony  a  controversy  on  the  Co-m- 
tminicatio  Idiomatum:  that  he  has  changed  his  articles  time  and 
again,  so  as  to  suit  the  people  to  whom  he  presents  them;  that 
his  articles  are  imperfect,  and  agree  more  nearly  with  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Flacianists  than  with  that  of  the  Church.  They 
remind  him  that  while  they  had  referred  to  his  sermon,  delivered 
at  Wittenberg,  they  had  not  rendered  an  opinion  on  his  articles ; 
say  that  the  convention  at  Zerbst  was  wholly  insidiose:  that  the 
reconciliation  of  which  he  had  boasted  had  not  taken  place ; 
that  if  their  Corpus  Doctrinae  be  found  wanting  they  are  ready 
to  make  an  explanation ;  that  the  matter  of  pacification  is  both 
difficult  and  dangerous. 

Of  Andreae 's  Report  we  may  say  that  it  is  aglow  with  ex- 
pectation.   It  is  evident  that  he  does  not  comprehend  the  depth 

*  Kollner,  Symholik,  T.,  538,  note  15.  See  Unschuldige  Nachrichten,  1704, 
pp.  23-27,  for  the  Becess  of  the  Convention.  By  Luther's  writings  are  meant 
the  Catechism  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  as  we  learn  from  Andreae  'a 
Bericht.     The  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum  was  not  itself  made  normative. 


EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION.  405 

and  the  bitterness  of  the  estrangement.  The  reply  of  the  Leip- 
zig and  Wittenberg  theologians  rightly  calls  his  plan  cum  pal- 
liativa,  though  its  theology  is  characterized  by  the  Swabian 
tendency.  Here  ended  Andreae's  first  effort  at  pacification. 
The  Weimarians  and  the  AYittenbergers  have  alike  repudiated 
him. 

2.     Andreae's  Six  Sermons. 

After  the  failure  of  the  Zerbst  convention  to  effect  pacifica- 
tion, Andreae  returned  to  Wiirtemberg  and  engaged  in  various, 
ecclesiastical  activities ;  but  he  did  not  lose  sight  of  his  pacifica- 
tion projects.  He  only  changed  his  plans.  He  determined  to 
turn  away  from  the  AVittenbergers,  to  conciliate  their  enemies, 
and  to  strive  especially  to  bring  the  Lutherans  of  Swabia  into  ^ 
formal  concord  with  the  Lutherans  of  Lower  Saxony,  and  to  '■^^ 
unite  both  against  Zwinglianism,  Calvinism  and  Philippism. 
A  favorable  opportunity  for  a  beginning,  according  to  this  new 
conception,  was  furnished  in  the  Autumn  of  1572,  when  Nicholas 
Selneccer,  Superintendent  at  Wolfenbiittel,  sent  him  a  copy  of 
the  first  volume  of  his  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion.  This 
book  Selneccer  had  dedicated  to  the  Duke  of  Wiirtemberg,  and 
had  affirmed  in  the  dedication  the  agreement  of  the  churches 
of  the  Duchy  of  Brunswick  with  those  of  Wlirtenberg  in  con- 
fession. He  also  praises  the  writings  of  Brentz  almost  above 
limit,  and  lauds  the  service  of  "the  reverend  and  most  cele- 
brated man,  Dr.  Jacob  Andreae,  in  properly  organizing  and 
establishing  the  churches  in  this  Duchy." 

This  work  by  Selneccer,  though  prevailingly  Melanchthonian 
throughout,  and  decidedly  so  on  the  doctrine  of  Free-will,  never-  '-"^^^ 
theless  incited  Andreae  to  compose  Six  Christian  Sermons  on 
the  Divisions  which  have  gradually  arisen  between  the  Theolo- 
gians of  the  Augsburg  Confession  from  the  Year  1548  to  the 
Year  1573.  Showing  how  a  plain  Pastor  and  a  Common  Chris- 
tian Layman,  who  have  been  troubled  thereat,  may  adjust 
themselves  by  means  of  the  Catechism.  By  Dr.  Jacob  Andreae, 
Provost  at  Tiibingen  and  Chancellor  of  the  University  there. 
The  content  of  each  Sermon,  Christian  Reader,  you  will  find 
below.  Printed  at  Tiibingen.   By  George  Gruppenbach.* 

The  substance  of  these  Six  Sermons  is  as  follows : 

I.     Of  the  Righteousness  of  Faith  Before  God. 
How  are  we  to  understand  the  proposition,   the   righteous- 
*  Eeprinted  by  Heppe,  III.,  Beilage,  No.  I. 


406  EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION. 

ness  of  Christ  which  is  reckoned  to  us  by  faith?  Some  under- 
stand it  of  the  divine  nature,  that  is,  of  the  essential  righteous- 
ness of  Christ  as  Christ  is  true  God.  Others  understand  it  of 
the  human  nature  which  Christ  received  from  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Others  understand  by  it  the  obedience  which  Christ  rendered 
to  his  heavenl}^  Father  under  the  law.  This  third  view  is 
taught  in  the  Scriptures,  which  employ  the  word  "justify"  in 
the  sense  of  declaring  righteous,  absolving  from  unrighteous- 
ness. In  the  righteousness  of  faith  three  things  go  together, 
and  unless  all  are  present  no  one  is  justified:  "First,  the  pure 
grace  of  God.  Secondly,  the  obedience  or  merit  of  Christ. 
Thirdly,  Faith.  For  where  there  is  no  grace  of  God  the  Father, 
there  there  is  neither  the  merit  of  Christ  nor  faith.  Again  :  Where 
we  do  not  have  Christ  in  his  obedience,  there  we  can  hope  for 
no  grace  of  God.  Also :  Where  there  is  no  faith,  there  neither 
the  grace  of  God  nor  the  obedience  of  Christ  is  of  any  avail. 
Therefore  in  the  justification  of  a  poor  sinner  before  God  these 
three  things  belong  together :  The  grace  of  God,  the  obedience 
of  Christ  and  true  faith.  For  God  is  gracious  alone  for  the 
isake  of  Christ  through  faith." 

A  plain  layman  should  say :  "I  believe  the  forgiveness  of 
sins, ' '  and  he  should  cling  to  the  faith  of  his  childhood  that  our 
righteousness  before  God  is  not  the  essential  righteousness  of 
God,  but  the  obedience  of  Christ,  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Son 
of  man,  who  has  furnished  our  righteousness  before  God.  This 
righteousness  is  appropriated  by  faith.  Such  is  the  chief  article 
of  our  faith,  namely,  that  our  righteousness  consists  not  in  our 
o'SATi  works,  nor  in  the  indwelling  of  the  essential  righteousness 
of  God;  "but  it  is  to  be  sought  alone  in  the  obedience  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  reckoned  to  us  through  faith  and  for 
whose  sake  alone  all  our  sins  are  removed  and  cancelled." 

II.  Of  Good  Works. 
.  One  party  says  that  good  works  are  necessary  to  salvation 
and  that  it  is  impossible  to  be  saved  without  good  works.  The 
other  party  says  that  good  works  are  not  only  not  necessary, 
but  are  detrimental  to  salvation.  The  plain  layman  nnist  turn 
to  the  Lord  Jesus  whose  worlc  alone,  alone,  alone,  is  necessary  to 
salvation.  This  is  the  old  Christian  faith.  The  proposition: 
Good  works  are  necessary  to  salvation  savors  of  the  condemned 
doctrine  of  the  papacy.  The  proposition  that  good  works  are 
detrimental  to  salvatiim  is  Epicurean. 


EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION.  407 

These  dangerous  and  offensive  propositions  should  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  Church.  The  people  should  rely  on  the  safe 
words  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

III.     Of  THE  Controversy  over  Original  Sin  and  Free-will. 

One  party  holds  and  teaches  that  original  sin  is  not  something 
in  man's  nature,  but  that  it  is  man's  nature  itself,  his  rational 
soul,  which  since  the  Fall  of  our  first  parents  is  the  creature  and 
work  of  the  devil.  This  view  is  founded  on  those  passages  of 
Scripture  in  which  man  is  compared  to  thorns,  and  thistles,  and 
his  heart  is  likened  to  a  hard  stone  and  to  an  evil  tree  which 
has  entirely  lost  its  good  essence. 

The  other  party  holds  that  original  sin  is  not  the  nature  or 
essence  of  man.  but  something  accidental  in  man's  soul,  and, 
that  man,  his  nature,  his  body  and  soul,  are  one  entity,  and 
that  sin  in  man,  in  his  body  and  soul,  is  a  different  thing.  A 
distinction  must  be  made :  Adam,  before  the  Fall,  was  without 
sin.  Adam,  after  the  Fall,  is  a  sinner.  Before  the  resurrection 
Adam  still  has  sin,  after  the  resurrection  he  is  without  sin.  Yet 
there  is  only  one  Adam  in  nature  and  in  essence,  and  not  one 
Adam  who  has  sinned  and  another  who  has  done  that  which  is 
right.  Paul  makes  a  clear  distinction  l^etweeu  the  essence  and 
the  sin.  He  does  not  say  that  "he  or  his  essence  is  sin,  but 
that  sin  is  in  him.  and  clings  to  him.  and  that  he  longs  to 
be  free  from  sin." 

A  second  question  is.  How  far  does  sin  extend  in  man,  especi- 
ally in  relation  to  spiritual  matters  and  in  relation  to  his  con- 
version to  God,  or  whether  in  spiritual  matters  he  can  do  any- 
thing of  himself  or  not?  Some  hold  that  though  man  has  by 
birth  a  corrupted  and  perverted  nature,  yet  when  the  Holy 
Spirit  comes  with  his  power,  and  helps  and  strengthens  the  re- 
maining powers  of  man,  man  can,  by  the  power  of  Free-will 
remaining,  Avith  the  help  and  assistance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  turn 
himself  to  God.  "for  man  is  not  a  block  or  a  stone,  but  though 
unregenerate  he  has  a  rational  soul,  reason  and  understanding, 
and  can  in  some  sense  distinguish  between  good  and  evil.  Hence 
he  is  without  excuse.  Such  is  the  meaning  of  all  those  passages 
of  Scripture  in  which  God  complains  that  man  will  not;  and 
Christ  himself  laments  over  Jerusalem :  How  oft  would  I 
have  gathered  thy  children  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under 
her  wing,  and  ye  would  not.  If  there  were  no  help  and  assist- 
ance of  God.  but  complaint  was  made  against  man's  will,  that 


408  EFFORTS   AT    PACIFICATION. 

he  will  not.  the  complaint  would  be  Avithout  meaning  if  man 
had  no  will  to  turn  to  God." 

The  other  party  holds  that  Free-will  is  merely  a  name,  and 
has  been  entirely  destroyed,  and  is  stark  blind.  God  works  con- 
version by  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  which  must  be  heard 
by  the  bodily  ears.  Now  as  regards  this  instrument  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  there  is  a  great  difference 
between  a  block  or  a  clod  and  an  unconverted  man.  For  man 
is  a  rational  creature  and  hears  the  Gospel.  A  block  and  a  clod 
are  not  rational,  and  cannot  hear.  The  order  of  God  is  that 
we  hear  the  "Word  of  Christ:  0  Jerusalem,  how  oft  would  I, 
and  ye  would  not.  "When  God  requires  obedience  man  can 
and  ought  to  render  it.  But  to  understand  and  to  believe  the 
•Gospel  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  through  the  Word 
preached  works  all  such  in  the  hearts  of  the  elect." 

IV.  Of  Adiaphora. 
The  question  is,  Whether  at  a  time  in  which  one  is  required 
to  make  a  confession  of  his  faith,  he  can,  with  a  good  conscience, 
permit  the  restoration  of  lapsed  or  abandoned  Church  usages 
in  order  to  please  the  enemies  of  God 's  AVord  ?  One  party  held 
that  this  can  and  may  be  done.  The  other  party  contended 
that  at  such  a  time  and  in  such  a  case  we  should  not  yield  in 
the  smallest  thing  to  the  enemies  of  God's  Word.  The  plain 
layman  should  take  the  position  that  what  is  necessary  God 
has  enjoined  in  his  Word,  and  that  what  he  has  not  enjoined  is 
not  necessary.  The  Christian  should  stand  fast  in  the  liberty 
wherewith  God  has  made  him  free.  But  the  papal  unction, 
consecration,  confirmation  and  the  Mass  are  papal  errors  which 
should  be  avoided. 

V.  Of  the  Difference  Between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel. 
The  question  is.  Should  the  Law,  that  is,  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, with  the  penalties  and  threats  attached  thereto,  be  ap- 
plied to  Christians?  One  party  maintains  that  the  Law  has 
to  do  with  the  Jews,  and  not  with  the  Christians.  The  other 
party,  following  Luther,  teaches  that  the  Law  has  been  in  exist- 
ence from  the  beginning  of  the  Avorld  and  must  be  employed  in 
the  Christian  Church.  Christ  has  commanded  the  preaching  of 
the  Law  and  of  the  Gospel.  "The  end  of  Law  is  Christ,  Rom. 
10,  and  there  is  not  one  God  in  the  Gospel  nnd  another  in  the 


EFFORTS   AT   PACIFICATION.  409 

Law.  for  there  is  only  one  eternal  God.  who  through  the  Law  in 
the  first  Commandment  requires  faith,  and  through  the  Gospel 

gives  it." 

There  is  also  the  question  about  the  third  use  of  the  Law,  Do 
Christians  need  the  Law  as  a  rule  by  which  to  guide  their  lives  ? 
The  one  party  holds  that  the  Christian  does  not  need  the  Law, 
since  of  himself  he  does  that  which  is  right.  The  other  party 
holds  that  the  righteous,  the  'regenerate,  need  the  Law  so  as 
daily  to  learn  the  will  of  God. 

In  so  far  as  the  believer  is  regenerate,  he  follows  the  Holy 
Spirit  who  is  in  him  as  the  rule  of  righteousness  and  holiness. 
But  in  so  far  as  he  is  not  regenerate,  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  the 
doctrines  and  admonitions  of  the  Law,  from  obedience  to  which 
the  believer  is  not  absolved. 

This  also  brings  in  the  question  of  Good  Works.  One  party 
maintains  that  though  Good  Works  are  not  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, yet  it  is  necessary  that  we  do  good  works,  inasmuch  as  the 
creature  ought  to  obey  the  Creator.  The  other  party  has  main- 
tained that  good  works  are  not  necessary,  but  they  ought  to  be 
done  with  a  free  spirit.  Believers  in  this  world  do  good  works, 
not  only  because  God  has  appointed  that  they  should  be  done, 
but  he  does  them  from  a  free  spirit.  In  so  far  as  he  is  born 
again  he  does  good  works  voluntarily.  In  so  far  as  he  still  has 
a  corrupt  nature  he  is  constrained  to  bring  all  his  powers  into 
obedience  to  Christ. 

VI.     Of  THE  Persox  and  Two  Natures,  Divine  and  Human, 

OF  Our  Lord. 
The  questions  involved  in  this  tenth  controversy  arose  with 
Zwingli's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  which  it  is  main- 
tained that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  there  is  only  bread  and  wine, 
and  not  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  The  real  question  now  is, 
"Does  the  human  nature  in  Christ,  which  has  its  own  essence 
and  attributes,  in  fact  and  in  reality  have  a  true  fellowship  with 
the  divine  nature  and  its  attributes?"  The  New  Wittenbergers 
following  Zwingli  hold  that  the  human  nature  has  in  fact  and 
in  reality  nothing  in  common  with  the  divine  nature  except  the 
name.  These  new  Wittenberg  theologians  hold  with  Luther 
the  presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, but  they  reject  and  condemn  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  per- 
son of  Christ.  Luther  and  Brentz  refuted  the  doctrine  of 
ZAvingli. 


410  EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION. 

A  common  layman  must  appeal  to  the  Apostles'  Creed: 
"Our  Christ."  "The  Son  of  God  is  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinit}'  and  has  a  divine  nature  in  common  with  the  Father 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  All  the  attributes  of  the  divine  nature 
were  appropriated  by  the  human  nature  of  Christ  in  the  womb 
of  the  Virgin  ]\Iary."'  The  question  now  is,  What  did  the  Son 
of  God  impart  to  the  human  by  the  personal  union?  The  Wit- 
tenbergers  say  that  he  imparted  nothing  to  it.  neither  his 
divine  nature,  nor  his  person,  nor  his  divine  attributes,  such 
as  omnipotence,  infinite  wisdom,  as  infinite  power  and  the  like. 
The  Christian  faith  teaches  "that  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God 
was  for  thy  sake  conceived  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  JNIarj', 
was  born  of  her.  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  died,  descended 
into  hell,  rose  again,  etc." 

These  new  theologians  teach  that  only  the  attributes  of  Christ 's 
human  nature  were  born,  suffered,  died,  rose  again,  and  that 
the  Son  of  God  had  no  true  fellowship  with  the  human  nature, 
neither  as  regards  his  divine  nature,  nor  as  regards  his  person, 
his  attributes,  his  majesty,  his  works.  If  this  be  so,  then  how 
can  it  be  said  truly  that  the  only  begotten  Son  was  born  of  a 
woman  for  us,  and  suffered,  and  that  we  are  redeemed  by  the 
blood  of  God?  The  New  Wittenbergers  deny  a  true  doctrine  of 
the  Communicatio  Idiomatum,  and  call  it  only  an  interchange  of 
names.  But  by  the  personal  union  of  the  two  natures  of  Christ 
is  meant  that  the  entire  Godhead  and  all  its  fulness  dwells 
bodily  in  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  Then  is  the  man  Christ 
capable  of  the  Godhead,  and  "the  human  nature  is  truly  in- 
grafted into  the  divine  majesty  of  the  Son  of  God." 

The  Wittenbergers  say:  "In  Christ  dwells  all  the  fulness 
of  the  Godhead  bodily,  but  not  in  the  human  nature  of  Christ. 
There  has  never  been  a  teacher  in  all  Christendom  who  so  believed 
and  taught.  AVhen  they  speak  of  the  indwelling  of  God  in 
Christ,  they  always  understand  it  of  his  humanity,  that  is,  in 
Christ  according  to  his  humanity,  or  that  in  his  human  nature 
dwells  the  fulness  of  the  divine  nature  bodily.  Hence  they  ex- 
plain the  word  bodily  as  equivalent  to  in  his  own  body." 

"In  Christ  is  one  only  divine  omnipotence,  namely,  the  eternal 
divine  omnipotence  which  is  peculiar  to  the  divine  nature.  This 
the  human  nature  has  in  common  with  the  Godhead  in  such  form 
that  the  Godhead  and  the  humanity  are  indeed  and  in  truth  one 
person." 

These  sermons  are  addressed  to  the  plain  pastor  and  to  the 


EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION.  411 

coiniuoii  layman,  rather  than  to  the  theologian.  They  embrace, 
on  the  basis  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  that  which  for  the 
most  part  is  common  to  evangelical  Lutheranism.  The  third 
sermon  presents  essentially  the  ^lelanchthoniau  doctrine  of  Free-  ^ 
will,  as  that  doctrine  had  been  again  and  again  expounded  by 
IMelanchthon,  especially  in  the  Apology,  to  which  he  adhered 
to  the  end  of  his  life,  and  also  as  that  doctrine  is  presented 
in  the  Eei^ly  to  the  Bavarain  Articles,  which  he  set  forth  as  a 
kind  of  final  confession  of  his  faith.*  By  no  means  is  man 
regarded  in  this  third  sermon  as  purely  passive  in  conversion 
to  God,  or  as  a  stock  or  a  stone,  but  as  a  rational  soul:  / 
iveuld,  hut  ye  would  not. 

In  the  sixth  sermon  the  Swabian  Christology  comes  distinctly 
into  view,  namely,  the  doctrine  that  by  the  incarnation  of  the 
Son  of  God  divine  attriliutes  are  imparted  to  the  human  nature 
of  Christ,  such  as  omnipotence  and  omniscience.  But  the  allega- 
tion that  the  Wittenberg  theologians  are  "new  Zwinglians,"  / 
and  that  they  have  repristinated  the  Zwinglian  Aloosis,  is  a 
slander  which  accords  well  with  the  prevalent  polemical  habit 
of  that  age,  which  was  first  to  brand  an  opponent  wdth  an  invidi- 
ous epithet,  or  to  align  him  with  a  notorious  heretic,  and  then 
to  condemn  him.  The  Wittenberg  theologians  held  no  such 
doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ  as  Andreae  alleges.  They  held 
the  doctrine  as  contained  in  their  Corpus,  in  the  older  symbols 
and  in  the  writings  of  Luther,  that  in  the  person  of  Christ  the 
divine  and  the  human  nature  are  inseparably  united,  and  that 
' '  His  human  nature  is  exalted  far.  far  above  all  other  creatures, 
angels  and  men.  The  Man  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God;  all  the 
properties  of  the  divine  nature  belong  to  the  IMan  Christ  in 
concreto."  f  But  it  was  only  by  turning  against  the  Philippists 
that  Andreae  could  hope  to  secure  the  assistance  of  the  Ubiq- 
uitarians  and  the  Flacianists  for  his  efforts  at  Pacification. 

These  Six  Sermons,  with  a  Preface  dedicated  -to  Duke  Julius, 
February  17,  1573,  and  commended  by  the  theological  faculty 
of  Tiiliingen,  Andreae  sent  to  the  Duke,  to  Chemnitz,  to  Chy- 
traeus,  to  Heshuss.  Wigand  and  other  theologians  whom  he 
knew  to  be  interested  in  the  work  of  concord,$  with  the  request 

*  This  Eeply  is  given  in  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum.  See  C.  E. 
IX..  1099,  where  Melanehthon  says:  "Volo  tamen  confessionem  meam  esse, 
Eespousiones  de  Bavaricis  articulis  contra  Pontificios,  Anabaptistas  Fla- 
cianos  et  similes."  Compare  the  Preface  (Latin),  to  the  Corpus  Docfrume, 
next  to  the  last  paragraph. 

t  Calinich,  lit  supra,  pp.  26,  27. 

J:  Heppe,  ut  supra,  III.,  36-39;   Kolde,  Einleituiu/.  LXIX. 


412  EFFORTS   AT    PACIFICATION. 

that  they  be  accepted  as  a  basis  of  concord.  But  it  was  soon 
discovered  that  the  sermonic  form  was  not  suited  for  a  confes- 
sion. Consequently  Chemnitz  suggested  to  Andreae,  through 
Duke  Julius,  that  the  contents  of  the  Sermons  should  be  changed 
into  articles  with  thesis  and  antithesis.* 

3.     The  Sivabian  Concordia. 

Andreae  adopted  the  suggestion  of  Chemnitz  and  in  a  short 
time  prepared  what  is  known  as  The  Sivabian  Concordia.  This 
formula  consists  of  eleven  articles,  as  follows:  1.  Of  Original 
Sin,  2.  Of  Free-will,  3.  Of  the  Righteousness  of  Faith  before 
God,  4.  Of  Good  Works,  5.  Of  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  6.  Of 
the  Third  use  of  the  Law  of  God,  7.  Of  Church  Usages  which  are 
called  Adiaphora  or  Things  Indifferent,  8.  Of  the  Lord's  Supper, 
9.  Of  the  Person  of  Christ,  10.  Of  the  Eternal  Providence  and 
Election  of  God,  11.  Of  other  Factions  and  Sects. 

On  the  twenty-second  of  March,  1574,  this  formula,  approved 
by  the  theological  faculty  of  Tiibingen  and  by  the  Consistorium 
of  Stuttgart,  was  sent  to  Duke  Julius.  In  substance  this  Ex- 
plication of  the  Controversies  (sometimes  called  the  Tilhingen 
Book),  which  had  arisen  among  the  theologians  of  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  was  simply  an  elaboration  of  the  Six  Sermons 
with  the  addition  of  the  last  two  articles.  On  the  twelfth  of 
^lay  the  Duke  commahded  Chemnitz  to  render  an  opinion  on 
the  book,  and  also  ordered  him  to  lay  it  before  the  clergy  of 
Brunswick,  and  to  obtain  their  opinion.  Chemnitz,  in  his  ar- 
dent longing  for  pacification,  took  up  the  matter  in  all  earnest- 
ness and  sent  the  Explication  to  the  chief  ministers  of  Lower 
Saxony;  and  the  Duke  urged  the  Princes  and  burgomasters  and- 
counsellors  in  all  Lower  Saxony  to  unite  on  the  clear  content  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology, 
the  Catechisms  of  Luther  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  and 
prayed  them  to  have  their  theologians  consult  with  Chemnitz  on 
the  work  of  concord.  Numerous  synods  and  conferences  were 
held  in  Lower  Saxony,  with  the  general  result  that  Andreae 's 
Explication  was  not  found  to  be  entirely  satisfactory.  Finally, 
in  April,  1575,  the  theological  Faculty  of  Rostock,  having  come 
into  possession  of  the  criticisms  of  Chemnitz  and  of  some  of  the 
conferences,  began  the  formal  revision  of  Andreae 's  work.  The 
articles  on  the  Lord's  Supper  and  Free-will  were  completely 
re-written  by  Chytraeus,  and  in  general  the  Swabian  Explica- 

*  Zeitschrift  fiir  Hist.  Theologie,  1866,  p.  231.     The  Duke's  Letter. 


EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION.  413 

Hon  was  so  much  changed  as  to  become  almost  au  entirely  new 
work.* 

4.     The  Sivabian-Saxon  Concordia. 

The  Swabian  Concordia,  revised  and  changed  as  noted  above,  , 
is  known  as  the  Sivahian-Saxon  Concordia. 

The  Concordia  in  this  form  takes  as  its  doctrinal  basis  or 
corpus  doctrinae,  the  Prophetical  and  Apostolic  Scriptures, 
the  three  Ancient  Creeds,  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apol- 
ogy, the  Schmalkald  Articles  and  Luther's  two  Catechisms.  It 
discusses  the  following  articles  in  the  following  order :  1.  Of 
Original  Sin,  2.  Of  the  Person  of  Christ,  3.  Of  the  Righteous- 
ness of  Faith  before  God,  4.  Of  Good  Works,  5.  Of  the  Law  and 
the  Gospel,  6.  Of  the  Third  Use  of  the  Laiu  of  God,  7.  Of  the 
Holy  Slipper,  8.  Of  God's  Eternal  Providence  and  Election,  9. 
Of  Church  Usages  which  are  called  Adiaphora  or  Things  Indif- 
ferent, 10.  Of  Free-will  or  Human  Powers,  11.  Of  Other  Fac- 
tions and  Sects  which  have  never  Acknowledged  the  Augsburg 
Confession.!; 

This  Concordia  was  sent  to  various  lands  and  cities  in  Lower 
Saxony  for  approval  and  subscription.  Some  of  these,  also 
the  Universities  of  Rostock  and  Helmstadt,  subscribed  it. 
Others  raised  objections.  Then  additional  changes  and  revisions 
were  made,  chiefly  by  Chemnitz.! 

Finally,  at  the  beginning  of  September,  1575,  the  new  for- 
mula was  sent  to  Andreae,  accompanied  by  a  letter  from  Chem- 
nitz, which  explains  as  diplomatically  as  possible  the  difficulties 
which  had  stood  in  the  Avay  of  concord  between  the  Saxon  and 
neighboring  churches,  and  urges  Andreae  to  lay  the  Formula 
before  the  "Wlirtemberg  theologians  for  examination,  and  to 
report  their  desideria  as  soon  as  possible.  §  But  the  new  for- 
mula had  been  so  changed  by  the  theologians  of  Lower  Saxony, 
that  Andreae  could  scarcely  recognize  any  part  of  it  as  his  own 
work.  Li  a  letter  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony  he  complains  of  the 
lack  of  uniformity  in  the  style  of  composition,  of  the  introduc- 
tion of  so  many  Latin  scholastic  terms,  and  of  so  many  Latin 

^  For  the  details  touching-  the  Swahian  Concordia,  see  Eehtmeyer-,  III., 
440  et  seqq.;  Loscher,  Historia  Motuum,  III.,  246  et  seqq. ;  Planck,  VI..  414 
et  seqq.;  Heppe,  ut' supra,  III..  2.39-258;  Kolde,  Einleitung,  LXIX.;  Zeii- 
schrift  fur  Hist.  Theologie,  1866,  pp.  230  et  seqq. 

t  Given  by  Pfaff  in  Acta  et  Scripta,  pp.  381  et  seqq.,  and  by  Heppe,  ut 
supra,  III.,  166-325,  under  the  title:  Formula  Concordiae  inter  Suevicas 
et  Saxonicas  E celestas. 

t  Planck,  VI.,  418 ;  Heppe,  III.,  53  et  seqq. 

§  See  Chemnitz's  letter  in  Pfaff 's  Acta  et  Scripta,  pp.  516  et  seqq. 


414  EFFORTS   AT    PACIFICATION. 

quotations  from  the  Fathers,  of  quoting  ^lelanehthon  in  one  place 
with  approbation  and  in  another  with  censure,  .and  of  the  ex- 
cessive use  of  Luther's  polemical  writings  against  the  Sacra- 
mentarians  in  the  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper.* 

Certain  it  is  that  this  revised  formula  lacks  the  simplicity 
and  the  symmetry  that  had  characterized  both  the  Six  Sermons 
and  the  Explication  of  Andreae,  who  sought  especially  to  meet 
the  needs  of  the  plain  pastor  and  the  common  layman.  In 
Tiibingen  and  in  Stuttgart  it  was  not  regarded  as  a  confession, 
but  as  a  theological  system  filled  with  scholastic  subtilties. 
Hence  the  AViirtemberg  theologians  neither  approved  it  nor  re- 
turned it  to  Brunsw^ick. 

Thus,  notwithstanding  the  labor  that  had  been  bestowed  upon 
it,  the  Swahian- Saxon  Concordia  failed  to  become  a  formula  of 
concord  hehveen  the  Swahian  and  Saxon  churches,  though  it 
had  become  a  formula  of  concord  between  nearly  all  the  churches 
of  Lower  Saxony.  But  the  strenuous  efforts  made  by  Duke 
Julius  and  Chemnitz,  to  gain  confessional  recognition  for  it  in 
Saxony,  in  Anhalt,  in  Prussia,  and  in  other  parts  of  Germany, 
were  without  effect.  Heshnss,  who  was  now  Bishop  of  Samland, 
and  "Wigand,  w^ho  was  Bishop  of  Pomesania,  had  no  confidence 
in  Andreae.  That  is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  all  the  efforts  made 
hitherto  to  construct  a  formula  of  doctrine  that  should  be  ac- 
cepted by  all  the  churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  or  even 
by  any  very  considerable  part  of  them,  have  come  to  naught. f 
Chemnitz  was  almost  in  despair  when  help  came  suddenly  from 
a  quarter  from  which  he  had  previouslj^  had  only  the  gravest 
apprehension,  namely,  from  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

5.  The  Manlhronn  Formula. 
In  one  of  his  .journeys  the  Elector  August  of  Saxony  chanced 
to  speak  with  Count  George  Ernest  of  Henneberg  of  the  desira- 
bilit.v  of  composing  the  controversies  which  had  arisen  among 
the  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  Count  told  the 
Elector  that  the  Wittenberg,  theologians  w^ere  suspected  by  other 

*  See  Andreae 's  letter  in  Hutter,  Witehergae,  1614,  pp.  85&  et  seqq. 

t  See  Heppe,  ut  supra,  III.,  66-68;  Healencyclopiidie,^  X.,  p.  740; 
Sehiitz,  Vita  Chytraei,  pp.  85  et  seqq.;  Loescher,  III.,'p.  252.  The  letters 
of  Duke  Julius  to  Duke  Albert  Frederick  of  Prussia  and  to  Hesbuss  and 
Wigand,  and  Chemnitz's  letter  to  Heshuss  and  Wigand,  are  given  by  Eeht- 
nieyer,  III.,  Beylagen,  pp.  246  et  seqq.  See  also  Leuckf eld 's  Historia  Ees- 
husiana,  pp.  112  et  seqq.  For  the  list  of  churches  in  Lower  Saxony  that  had 
approved  the  Swdbian-Saxon  Formula,  see  Chemnitz's  letter,  to  which  refer- 
ence has  been  made  above. 


EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION,  415 

Lutheran  theologians  of  entertaining  errors,  and  that  said  errors 
would  have  to  be  condemned  before  concord  could  be  perman- 
ently established.  Thereupon  the  Elector  exhorted  the  Count 
to  make  a  beginning,  and  promised  to  do  all  in  his  power  to 
promote  concord.  A  little  later  (November,  1575,)  Count 
George  Ernest,  while  attending  the  wedding  festivities  of  Duke 
Ludwig  at  Stuttgart,  reported  to  the  Duke  and  to  the  ]\lar- 
grave  of  Baden,  the  conversation  which  he  had  had  with  the 
Elector  of  Saxonj'  on  the  matter  of  composing  the  disputes 
of  the  theologians.  Thereupon  these  three  Princes  resolved  to 
take  the  matter  in  hand  in  accordance  with  the  expressed  wish 
of  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  Immediately  they  commissioned  Luke 
Osiander,  Wiirtemberg  Court  Preacher,  Balthaser  Bidembach, 
Provost  at  Stuttgart,  Abel  Scherdinger,  Henneberg  Court 
Preacher,  and  some  Baden  theologians  to  present  an  Opinion 
"as  to  the  manner  in  which  a  document  might  be  composed, 
and  by  which  a  beginning  might  be  made,  for  a  true  concord  be- 
tween the  churches  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  by  which 
the  errors  that  have  crept  in  and  the  divisions  might  be  removed, 
and  the  known  sects  might  be  excluded.''* 

On  the  very  same  day  (November  14th)  on  which  they  had 
received  their  commission  the  theologians  assembled  at  Stuttgart, 
present  to  their  Princes  a  report  in  which  they  recommend  that 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles, 
Luther's  Catechisms  "and  Luther's  other  important  writings," 
should  be  the  basis;  that  the  controverted  doctrine  should  be 
stated  and  explained  according  to  the  above-named  confessions, 
and  supported  by  passages  from  the  Scriptures  and  from  the 
ancient  creeds ;  then  the  opposite  doctrine  should  be  stated  in 
antithesis  and  refuted,  yet  without  naming  the  persons  who  had 
defended  the  errors.  As  the  occasion  may  demand,  a  passage 
or  two  may  be  quoted  from  the  writings  of  Luther.  But  the 
Avritings  of  ]Melanchthon  are  not  to  be  quoted,  either  for  defend- 
ing the  true  doctrine  or  for  the  refutation  of  an  error  in  doc- 
trine.f 

The  proposition  of  the  theologians  was  approved  by  tlie 
Princes,  who  at  once  commissioned  Luke  Osiander  and  Balthaser 
Bidembach  to  compose  a  formula  of  pacification  according  to 
the  plan  exhibited.    AYhen  the  two  theologians  just  named  had 

*  Hutter.  ut  sxipra.  Cap.  XI. ;  Heppe,  ut  supra,  III.,  74.  75 ;  Planck,  IV., 
429. 

t  Hntter,  ut  supra,  Cap.  XI. 


416  EFFORTS    AT    PACIFICATION. 

completed  their  work  they  met  with  a  few  Henneberg  and  Baden 
theologians  in  the  ^laulbronu  Cloister.  These  all  together  exam- 
ined the  proposed  formula,  and,  January  19,  1576,  approved 
and  signed  it.  It  is  known  as  the  JNIaulbrouu  Formula.  It  re- 
mained unprinted  until  it  was  discovered  in  1866  by  Dr.  Theo- 
dore Pressel  in  the  Archives  at  Dresden,  and  published  by  him 
in  Volume  XI.  of  the  Jahrbiicher  fiir  Deutsche  Theologie,  pp. 
640  et  seqq.  We  can  now  determine  how  much  it  contributed 
to  the  Torgau  Book. 

The  Formula  consists  of  the  following  articles  given  in  the 
following  order:  1.  Of  Original  Sin,  2.  Of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
3.  Of  the  Bighteousness  of  Faith,  4.  Of  the  Law  and  Gospel,  5. 
Of  Good  ^Yorks,  6.  Of  the  Eoly  Supper  of  our  Lord,  7.  Of 
Church  Usages,  which  are  called  Adiaphora,  or  Things  Indif- 
ferent, 8.  Of  Free-ivill,  9.  Of  the  Third  Use  of  God's  Law. 

Each  article  is  introduced  by  quoting  the  corresponding  article 
from  the  Augsburg  Confession,  except  the  last,  which  has  no 
article  directly  corresponding  to  it  in  the  Confession.  The 
whole  is  signed  by  Balthaser  Bidembach,  Provost  at  Stuttgart ; 
Luke  Osiander,  Wiirtemberg  Court  Preacher;  Rupert  Diirr, 
Superintendent  at  Pforsheim;  Abel  Scherdinger,  Henneberg 
Court  Preacher;  Peter  Streck,  Consistorial  and  Pastor  at  SuU. 
The  treatment  is  by  thesis  and  antithesis,  and  by  massing  quota- 
tions from  the  Scriptures,  from  the  Ancient  Symbols,  and  from 
the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles  and  from  Luther's  Cate- 
chisms, all  of  which  are  recognized  as  the  communis  consensus. 
Also  numerous  quotations  are  introduced  from  writings  of 
Luther  other  than  the  Catechisms  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles. 
The  materials  are  brought  together  in  a  systematic,  orderly  and 
compact  manner.  The  style  is  as  even  and  as  uniform  as  the 
qualities  of  the  materials  would  seem  to  allow.  It  covers  seventy 
printed  pages  of  about  three  hundred  and  fifty  words  each,  and 
is  about  one  half  as  voluminous  as  the  Swahian-Saxon  Concordia. 
In  its  Christology  it  is  decidedly  Swabian.  It  declares  that 
"Christ  even  as  a  man  knows  all  things,  can  do  all  things  and 
is  present  everywhere  in  his  Church,  and  as  a  man  he  sits  at 
the  right  hand  of  God  and  rules  with  God  in  almighty  power, 
present  in  all  places  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  above  all  creatures." 
The  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper  is  composed  very  largely  of 
quotations  from  the  Older  Confessions  and  from  Luther 's  Greater 
Confession  against  Zwingli,  including  the  declaration:  "I  con- 
fess the  Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  that  there  the  bodv  and  the 


KFFdins    AT    rACIF'ICATION.  417 

blood  in  the  bread  and  wine  are  trnly  eaten  and  drunk  l)y  the 
mouth,  though  the  priests  who  administer  it,  or  they  who  par- 
take of  it.  do  not  believe,  or  otherwise  misuse  it."  The  article 
on  Free-will  is  constructed  in  like  manner,  including  a  quota- 
tion from  the  Greater  Confession  and  an  appeal  to  the  De  Servo 
Arbitrio  against  Erasmus. 

In  this  Formula  tlie  exposition  and  argument  in  each  article 
are  so  conducted  as  to  find  their  climax  in  Luther.  Melancli- 
tlion,  in  accordance  with  the  progrannne  submitted  to  and  ac- 
cepted by  the  three  Princes,  is  not  once  named,  wdiile  Luther's 
private  writings,  not  infrequently  those  which  are  most  violently 
polemical,  and  which  antedate  the  Confessions,  are  quoted  as  of 
final  authority.  This  gives  the  Formula  a  one-sided  and  a 
decidedly  polemical  character.  Hence,  as  a  whole,  it  stands  for 
Lutherism  rather  than  for  Lutheranism.  Nevertheless  the  For- 
mula was  approved  by  Duke  Ludw^ig  of  Wiirtemberg,  by  Mav- 
grave  Carl  of  Baden  and  by  Count  George  Ernest  of  Henne- 
berg.  February  9,  1576,  the  Count  sent  a  copy  of  it  to  the 
Elector  of  Saxony,  who  had  already  received,  from  Duke  Julius 
of  Brunswick,  a  copy  of  the  Swahian-Sa.ron  Concordia.* 

*  See  Hiitter,  Cap.  XI..  p.  s.3 ;  Heppe.  III.,  76;  Planck,  IV.,  429,  430; 
KoUner,  pp.  540  ct  sajq.:  Anton,  pp.  I(i4  ef  seqq.  Some  authors  say  that 
August  reeeivetl  the  two  writinos  at  about  the  same  time. 

27 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THE  TORGAU  BOOK. 

In  the  year  1573  Flacianism  was  expelled  from  Jena.  The 
next  year  Crypto- Calvinism  was  driven  from  Wittenberg.  The 
negotiations  of  the  years  1573-1575  had  led  to  a  close  approxi- 
mation of  Wiirteniberg  and  Lower  Saxony  in  matters  of  faith. 
Three  Princes  of  Upper  Germany  had  united  in  a  formula. 
Andreae  was  indefatigable,  pliant  and  tenacious.  Chemnitz  was 
moderate  and  judicious.  Duke  Julius  was  strenuous  and  active. 
Landgrave  William  was  sympathetic  and  alert.  The  Elector 
August  had  committed  himself  to  the  project  of  pacification. 
The  psychological  moment  had  come.  The  thought  that  ruled 
in  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  most  influential  Lutheran  theo- 
logians and  Princes  was  that  of  pacification.  A  common  desire 
and  a  common  sentiment  were  bringing  multitudes  from  differ- 
ent directions  to  a  common  goal.  While  the  Princes  of  Upper 
Germany  were  projecting  and  their  theologians  were  preparing 
a  formula  of  pacification,  the  Elector  of  Saxony  was  counselling 
with  his  confidential  advisers  and  with  Princes  as  to  the  best 
method  of  effecting  pacification  among  the  adherents  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  November  21,  1575,  he  addressed  a  com- 
munication on  the  subject  to  Hans  von  Bernstein,  Tham  von 
Sebottendorf,  Dr.  Laurence  Lindemann  and  Dr.  David  Pfeiffer. 
He  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  almost  every  land  has  its 
own  Corpus  Doctrinne.  Unity  under  such  circumstances  cannot 
be  effected.  He  suggests  that  ''we  who  subscribe  the  Augsburg 
Confession  unite  in  a  friendly  way  and  agree  that  each  ruler 
shall  name  three  or  four  pacific  theologians  and  as  manj^  civil 
counsellors,  and  that  the  rulers  shall  hold  a  convention  on  this 
subject,  and  that  each  ruler  shall  bring  his  own  Corpus  Doc- 
trinae,  and  that  these  theologians  and  counsellors  together  shall 
be  charged  with  the  duty  of  taking  the  Augsburg  Confession  as 
their  norm  and  of  conferring  and  covinselling  in  regard  to  the 
Corpus  Doctrinae,  so  that,  by  God's  grace,  out  of  all  one  Corpus 
may  be  constructed  which  we  can  all  subscribe,  and  that  this 
book  or  Corpus  Doctrinae  shall  be  printed  and  placed  before 
every  ruler  as  the  norm  for  his  clergy."    To  this  end  the  Elector 

(418) 


THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  410 

consulted  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  the  ^Margrave  of  Branden- 
burg, the  Landgrave  of  Hesse  and  the  Count  of  Henneberg.* 
The  counsellors  approved  the  Elector's  proposition  November 
26th,  and  when  noAv  he  learned  that  the  Princes  had  also  ap- 
proved his  plans  of  pacification,  he  resolved  to  call  a  convention 
of  his  chief  theologians.  , 


1.     The   Lichtenherg   Convention,   1576. 

On  the  loth  of  February  twelve  theologians  assembled  at 
Lichtenberg  on  the  Elbe,  in  obedience  to  the  electoral  sum- 
mons. They  were :  Dr.  Salmuth  of  Leipzig,  Dr.  Crell  of  Wit- 
tenberg, Dr.  Harder  of  Leipzig,  Dr.  ]Morlin  of  Coburg,  Dr. 
Selneccer  of  Leipzig.  Dr.  Greser  of  Dresden,  Dr.  Mirus  of 
Dresden,  ^Masters  Lystenius,  Jagenteufel,  Cornicaelius,  Sagit- 
tarius and  Glaser,  respectively  of  Dresden,  Meissen,  Hayna,^ 
Annaberg  and  Dresden. 

In  his  Proposition,  after  reminding  the  theologians  of  the 
strifes,  divisions  and  quarrels  which  for  years  had  raged  among 
the  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  after  noting  the 
fact  that  all  previous  efforts  to  effect  a  better  understanding, 
had  produced  no  good  results,  he  declares  that  he  and  other 
Princes  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  have  resolved  to  make  an- 
other effort  "to  establish  Christian  concord  and  a  correct,  unani- 
mous understanding  in  doctrine  between  the  theologians  and 
Estates  of  the  Augsburg  Confession."  He  says  that  they  have 
been  led  to  undertake  this  work  "because  we  and  you  knoAV 
that  some  of  the  disputatious  theologians,  like  Illyricus  and 
others,  who  started  this  strife,  have  died,  and  others  have  been 
so  used  up  by  controversies  and  quarrels,  that  they  have  come 
to  their  senses,  and  will  probably  show  themselves  more  reason- 
able." "There  are  also  many  God-fearing  and  pacific  theolo- 
gians now  living  who  desire  concord  and  from  their  hearts  sigh 
and  pray  to  God  Almighty  for  it."  He  then  asks  for  an  Opinion 
on  the  five  f ollowing^questions : 

1.  Who  and  hoAv  many  theologians  from  the  Estates  are  to 
be  brought  together  and  employed  1 

2.  Whether  the  proceedings  should  be  conducted  in  writing 
or  orally. 

3.  Whether  written  statements  should  be  made  as  a  proper 
preparation. 

*  "Waleh,  Introductio,  p.  715. 


420        _  THE    TORGAU    BOOK. 

4.  Whether,  besides  the  theologians,  other  persons  should  be 
appointed. 

5.  Which  Articles  shall  be  considered  and  settled? 

The  Elector's  Proposition  was  thoroughly  discussed  pro  et 
contra.  Each  one  of  the  twelve  members  of  the  Convention  de- 
livered his  opinion.  Drs.  Salmuth,  Crell  and  Harder  insisted 
that  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum  be  made  the  basis  of 
concord.  Dr.  JMorlin  declared  that  the  Corpus  was  really  the 
beginning  of  the  schism,  and  to  reaffirm  it  would  give  especial 
offense  to  the  Prussians.  Dr.  Greser  thought  that,  first  of  all. 
the  obstacles  should  be  removed,  namely,  the  Crypto-Calvinistie 
documents.     Then  a  new  Corpus  Doctrinae  should  be  composed. 

Now  it  was  that  Dr.  Selneccer  arose.  During  the  last  few 
years  he  had  undergone  a  decided  change  in  his  theological  views. 
He  was  also  in  high  favor  with  the  Elector.  He  declared  that 
the  times  had  changed,  that  a  break  must  be  made  with  much 
that  belonged  to  the  past,  that  they  must  i)lant  themselves  on 
the  word  of  Luther.  He  complained  of  the  weaknesses  and 
aberrations  of  Melanchthon,  and  declared  that  all  that  is  and 
is  called  Calvinism  must  be  excluded. 

Two    things    are   necessary    for   the    restoration    of    concord : 

1.  All  obstacles  are  to  be  removed.  Not  everything  is  to  be 
unqualifiedly  branded  as  Flacianistic,  as  is  now  the  custom  in 
the  universities,  but  it  must  be  shown  what  is  meant  by  that 
word.  Nor  must  anyone  be  stigmatized  as  an  ubiquitist.  As 
for  himself,  he  regarded  all  as  Calvinists  who  in  general  cry 
out  against  the  ubiquitists.  The  Corpus  Doctrinae  dare  not  be 
put  upon  a  candle-stick  as  an  unchangeable  symbol  or  norm. 
The  books  published  under  Crypto-Calvinistie  auspices  must  be 
forbidden.  The  new  disputes  and  phrases  at  that  time  in  use 
in  the  universities  of  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  must  ])e  dropped, 
since  they  only  give  greater  offense.  "For  at  these  universities 
it  is  now  taught  that  Christ  is  exalted  according  to  both  natures." 

2.  The  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Catechisms  of 
Luther  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles  must  be  made  the  norm 
for  doctrine.  The  Swabian-fSaxon  Articles  might  be  examined. 
If  they  should  be  found  to  be  correct,  they  also  can  be  sanc- 
tioned as  a  norm  for  doctrine.  The  questions  touching  the  doc- 
trine of  Free-will,  the  definition  of  the  Gospel,  the  necessity  of 
good  works  to  salvation,  the  communicatio  icliomatum.  and  others 
of  recent  appearance,  can  be  treated  in  a  colloquy,  to  which  such 
foreign  theologians  as  Chytraeus,  Andreae,  Chemnitz,  Marbach 


THE    TOROAU    BOOK.  421 

and  others  Jiiaj'  he  invited.  Only  in  this  way  can  anyone  hope 
for  the  restoration  of  concord.  The  civil  authorities  would  then 
stand  by  these  fundamental  principles  of  concord,  and  they 
must  remove  all  those  who,  in  the  universities  or  elsewhere, 
should  act  conti-ariwise. 

When  all  had  had  their  say,  it  was  found  that  a  decided 
majority  stood  with  Selneccer.  He  was,  therefore,  requested  to 
draAV  up  the  report  which  was  to  be  delivered  to  the  Elector. 
The  next  morning",  at  9  o'clock,  he  read  his  draft  before  the 
Convention.  In  the  afternoon  he  copied  it  with  his  own  hand, 
W'hereupon  it  was  signed  by  all  the  members  of  the  Convention 
and  delivered  to  the  Elector. 

The  chief  points  of  this  Lichtenberg  Opinion  are  as  follows: 

First  of  all,  should  the  theologians  of  all  parties  wholly  for- 
give and  forget  all  the  differences  and  controversies  of  the  past. 
The  former  causes  of  disunion  must  be  abolished.  The  Corpus 
Doctrinae  has  given  offense  because  it  is  not  sufficiently  explicit 
on  the  doctrine  of  Free-will,  the  definition  of  the  Gospel,  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  as  against  the  Sacramentarians.  "The  book 
called  Corpus  Doctrinae  we  will  bind  on  no  man's  conscience, 
nor  press  it  upon  anyone  as  a  symbol  or  norm,  but  we  hold  it 
to  be  a  glorious,  good,  useful  book,  and  we  connnend  it  as  a 
method  of  teaching  and  learning,  by  means  of  which  teachers 
and  youth  may  exercise  themselves  in  speaking,  in  writing  and 
in  teaching."  "But  as  the  norm  of  our  doctrine  and  Confes- 
sion we  present  and  name,  first  of  all,  and  without  qualification, 
the  Prophetic  and  Apostolic  Scriptures,  the  three  Ecumenical 
Creeds  confessed  in  the  entire  Christian  Church,  the  Apostles', 
the  Nieene  and  the  Athanasian,  and  then  the  first  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology  of  the  same,  Luther's  Smaller 
and  Larger  Catechisms  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles.  Also,  if  on 
account  of  the  doctrine  of  the  righteousness  of  man  before  God 
anyone  wishes  to  add  the  glorious  and  comforting  explanation 
of  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  published  by  Dr.  Luther, 
we  are  perfectly  agreed."  The  Crypto-Calvinistic  writings  are  to 
be  abolished.  A  convention  of  pacific  and  unsuspected  theolo- 
gians should  be  called  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  in  order  the 
Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  To  this  convention  should 
be  invited,  in  accordance  wdth  the  wish  of  Landgrave  William  of 
Hesse,  Chytraeus,  Chemnitz,  Andreae  and  Marbach. 

Some  other  matters,  though  of  small  importance,  were  made 
the  subject  of  action  the  next  day.    On  the  following  day,  Febru- 


y 


422  THE    TORGAU    BOOK. 

ary  18th,  the  theologians  left  Liehtenberg.  A  most  important 
step  had  been  taken  in  the  direction  of  concord.  The  Elector 
was  delighted  with  the  Opinion  of  his  theologians  and  returned 
them  his  thanks  through  some  of  his  counsellors.* 

2.     The   Torgau  Convention. 

The  Elector  of  Saxony,  following  the  Opinion  of  his  theolo- 
gians and  the  recommendation  of  Landgrave  William,  called 
Jacob  Andreae  to  Saxony  to  assist  in  the  work  of  concord.  On 
the  9th  of  April  he  arrived  at  Torgau.  His  first  concern  was  to 
have  the  Elector  call  a  convention  as  soon  as  possible  to  act  on 
the  suggestions  of  the  Liehtenberg  Convention,  and  to  construct 
a  formula  of  concoi^d  out  of  the  two  formulae  already  placed  in 
his  hands.  To  this  end  a  convention  was  arranged  for  ^Nlay  28th. 
Chemnitz  of  Brunswick,  Chytraeus  of  Rostock,  Andrew  Mus- 
culus  and  Christopher  Koerner  of  Frankfort-on-the-Oder  were 
invited  to  attend.  In  addition  to  these,  the  Elector  summoned 
all  the  theologians  who  had  attended  the  Liehtenberg  Conven- 
tion, except  Dr.  Salmuth,  whose  place  was  filled  by  Caspar 
Heyderich,  Pastor  and  Superintendent  at  Torgau. f  The  con- 
vention was  opened  INIay  28th  in  the  Castle  Hartenfels  at  Torgau. 
The  Electoral  Secretary,  John  Jenitzsch,  read  the  Electoral  Prop- 
osition, by  which  the  theologians  are  exhorted  to  confer  together 
in  the  fear  of  God,  to  examine  the  various  propositions  handed 
in,  and  to  compose,  in  writing,  not  only  a  formula  of  concord, 
but  a  discussion  of  the  Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession 
which  had  been  subjects  of  controversy,  so  that  there  may  be  a 
unanimous  agreement  about  religion,  and  that  confidence  may 
be  restored  and  maintained.  J 

In  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  Electoral  Propo- 
sition the  theologians  advanced  to  their  work.  They  first  took 
up  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia  and  the  Maulbronn  Formula 
for  comparison.  At  once  the  question  arose.  Which  of  the  two 
shall  have  the  precedence?  Chemnitz  and  Chytraeus  contended 
that  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia  should  have  the  first  place. 
Andreae  favored  the  Maulbronn  Formula.  Andreae  at  length 
accomplished  by  diplomacy   what  he  could  not  accomplish  by 

*  For  the  official  documents  connected  with  the  Liehtenberg  C!onvention, 
'  see  Hutter,  Cap.  IX.,  pp.  7.5  et  seqq.  For  historical  details,  see  Anton,  pp. 
156  et  seqq.;  Planck,  VI.,  437  et  seqq.;  Walch,  Introductio,  pp.  71.5  et  seqq.; 
Heppe,  III.,  84  et  seqq.;  Pressel  in  Jahrbucher  fur  Deutsche  Theologie,  1877, 
pp.  10  et  seqq.;  Miiller's  Die  Symbolische  Biicher,  Einleitung,  IX.  edition, 
p.  Ixxi. 

t  Hutter,  Cap.  XI.,  p.  91;  Planck,  VI..  pp.  448-9;  Heppe,  III.,  p.  102. 

J:  Hutter,  Cap.  XI..  89  et  seqq.;  Planck,  VT.,  449,  4-50;  Heppe,  III.,  10.3. 


THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  423 

argument.  He  conceded  that  the  Svvabiau-Saxon  Concordia 
should  be  taken  as  the  basis,  provided  that  everything  which 
was  peculiar  to  the  IMaulbronn  Formula,  especially  its  num- 
erous citations  from  the  private  writings  of  Luther,  should 
be  introduced  into  the  proposed  new  formula.  This  was  a  nice 
piece  of  diplomacy,  by  which  Andreae  brought  Chemnitz  and 
Chytraeus  to  the  full  approval  of  his  demands,  and  to  the  execu- 
tion of  the  programme  exhibited  in  the  jNIaulbronn  Formula.  It 
contributed  to  the  omission  of  the  name  of  Melanchthon  from 
the  Torgau  Book.  It  installed  numerous  passages  taken  from 
Luther's  polemical  writings  as  confessional.  It  gave  the  Torgau 
Book,  and  finally  the  FormuJa  Concordiae,  a  decidedly  Swabiau 
complexion.* 

i\Iuch  difficulty  was  experienced  in  treating  the  Articles  on 
Original  Sin  and  Free-will.  Some  of  the  theologians  defended 
the  views  of  Melanchthon  on  Free-will,  and  others  opposed  them. 
It  was  during  the  discussion  of  this  subject,  the  historians  think, 
that  the  choleric  Musculus  sprang  up  and  declared  that  he  would 
leave  the  convention.!  However,  he  was  prevailed  upon  to  re- 
main in  the  convention.  But  the  Article  on  Free-will  was  con- 
structed so  as  to  differ  significantly  from  the  Article  under  the 
same  title  Avhich  had  been  written  by  Chytraeus  for  the  Swabian- 
Saxon  Formula.  Some  passages  were  removed  from  Chytraeus' 
article,  and  quotations  Avere  introduced  from  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, from  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles  and  the 
Catechisms  of  Luther,  i 

Early  in  the  convention,  Andreae  reported  to  the  Elector  that 
the  theologians  had  agreed  on  two  Articles  of  great  importance, 
namely,  that  of  Original  Sin  and  that  of  Free-will. §  The  work 
now  went  rapidly  forward.  The  remaining  obstacles  to  agree- 
ment were  easily  overcome.  On  the  seventh  of  June  the  theolo- 
gians brought  their  work  to  a  close,  and  sent  a  connnunication  to 
the  Elector,  in  which  they  inform  him  that  they  have  followed 
his  Proposition,  and  have  prepared,  in  writing,  a  Corpus  on  the 
basis  of  the  ]\Iaulbronn  and  Swabian-Saxon  formulae,  both  of 
which  they  regard  as  in  accord  with  God's  Word.  They  express 
the  hope  that  those  who  teach  purely  in  the  churches  will  take  no 
great  offense  at  their  work,  and  that  peace  and  harmony  may  be 

*  Kolde,  Einleitung,  p.  Ixxii. 

t  Schiitz,  Vita  Chytraei,  II.,  405;  Anton,  p.  171;   Gieseler,  IV.,  4S.3    note 
8;  Planck,  VI.,  p.  454,  note  198. 
t  Balthasar,  I.,  11;   Anton,  p.  171. 
§  Hixtter,  Cap.  IX.,  p.  f»l. 


424  THE    TOKGAU    BOOK. 

restored.  They  declare  that  they  have  no  desire  to  deprive  any- 
one of  his  independent  judgment  and  that  they  Avish  to  submit 
their  conclusions  to  the  judgment  of  the  Princes  and  of  their 
theologians. 

Thus  arose  the  T organ  Book  (so  called  from  the  place  of  its 
composition),  which  is  the  formal  precursor  of  the  Bergic  Book, 
which  is  generally  known  as  the  Formula  of  Concord.  This 
Torgau  Book  contains  the  following  articles,  placed  in  the  fol- 
lowing order:  1.  Of  Original  Sin;  2.  Of  Free-will;  3.  Of  the 
Righteousness  of  Faith  before  God;  4.  Of  Good  Works;  5.  Of 
the  Law  and  the  Gospel ;  6.  Of  the  Third  Use  of  the  Law  of  God ; 
7.  Of  the  Holy  Supper;  8.  Of  the  Person  of  Christ;  9.  Of  the 
Descensus  of  Christ;  10.  Of  Church  Usages;  11.  Of  God's 
Eternal  Predestination  and  Election ;  12.  Of  Other  Parties  and 
Sects  which  never  subscribed  to  the  Augsburg  Confession — which 
is  also  the  order  of  the  Articles  under  the  same  titles  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord. 

At  the  end  of  the  Articles,  Andreae,  Selneccer,  jNIuscuIus, 
Koerner,  Chytraeus  and  Chemnitz  place  and  subscribe  the  fol- 
lowing declaration:  "These  and  the  like  articles  together,  and 
whatever. is  connected  with  them,  or  follows  from  them,  we  re- 
ject and  condemn  as  incorrect,  false,  heretical  and  contrary  to 
God's  Word,  to  the  three  Symbols,  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  Apology,  to  the  Schmalkald  Articles  and  Luther's  Cate- 
chisms :  against  these  all  pious  Christians  will  and  should  guard 
themselves  as  they  value  the  salvation  and  happiness  of  their 
souls. 

"On  the  contrary,  before  the  face  of  God  and  before  the 
whole  Christian  Church,  in  the  presence  of  those  now  living  and 
of  those  who  shall  come  after  us,  Ave  Avish  to  testify  that  this 
explanation  of  the  controverted  articles  noAv  made,  and  no  other, 
is  our  faith,  doctrine  and  confession,  in  AA'hich,  by  God's  grace, 
with  fearless  heart,  Ave  are  Avilling  to  appear  before  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Christ  and  render  an  account  for  this  transaction. 
To  Him  be  thanks,  honor  and  glory,  Avorld  AA'ithout  end. 
Amen."  * 

But  not  only  did  these  six  theologians  thus  testify  their  ap- 
proval of  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  Torgau  Book;  they 
united  with  other  members  of  the  Convention  in  a  service  of 
thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God  for  the  unexpected  but  auspicious 
issue  of  the  Convention.  Selneccer  preached.  Andreae  exulted 
*  Bemler,  Abdrncl'  des  Torgischen  Buchs,  p.  322. 


THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  425 

over  this  cdnsuniiiiatioii  of  the  seven  years  of  his  activity  in  the 
Avork  of  concord.  C'hytraeus  wrote  to  his  friends  that  the  right 
hand  of  the  :\[ost  High  was  to  be  recognized  in  the  transactions 
of  the  Torgau  Convention.*  Chenniitz  returned  home,  and  on 
Jnne  14th  he  wrote  Dnlce  Jnlins  that  he  now  had  hope  of  a  com- 
plete concord  among  the  adherents  of  the  Angsbnrg  Confession.! 
In  the  Dnchy  of  iMeeldenbnrg  and  in  the  cities  (^f  Lower  Saxony 
public  thanksgiving  was  rendered  to  God  for  tlie  happy  termina- 
tion of  the  Torgau  Convention. t 

3.     The    Torgau   Booh   Subjected    to   Examination. 
It  will  be  remembered  tliat  the  theologians  assembled  at  Torgau 
reconnnended  that  their  work  be  submitted  to  the  Princes  and 
their  theologians  for  further  consideration.    Acting  on  this  recom- 
mendation, the  Elector  of  Saxony  not  only  examined  the  book 
himself  and  required  an  opinion  from  his  counsellors,  but  he  sent 
it  to  most  of  the  Lutheran  Princes,  as  to  the  Elector  of  Branden- 
burg, the  Landgrave  of  Hesse,  the  dukes  of  Brunswick,  Pomer- 
ania,  Mecklenburg  and  IIolstein,to  the  Palsgraves  of  Neuburg  and 
Zweibriicken,  and  requested  them  to  have  it  examined  by  their 
theologians,  and  to  report  to  him  their  opinions.^     Chemnitz  was 
appointed  to  bring  the  matter  before  the  cities  of  Lower  Saxony, 
especially  before  Brunswick,  Liibeck,  Hamburg  and  Liineburg.|| 
He  also  sought  to  gain  the  approbation  of  the  Prussian  churches* 
To  that  end  he  wrote  a  long  letter  to  Heshuss,  who  was  now 
Bishop  of  Samland.     As  this  letter  throws  nuich  light  on  the 
whole  situation  at  this  time,  we  present  it  entire  in  English  dress : 
"Greeting  in  Christ,  Avho  is  our  true  and  only  salvation.    Most 
Reverend  Lord  Bishop.     Since  your  messenger  urged  me,  I  was 
not  willing  that  he  should  return  to  you  without  a  letter  from 
me,  especially  since  at  this  time  a  change  of  the  right  hand  of 
the  Most  High  has  furnished  a  good  reason  Avhy  I  should  write. 
Your  Most  Reverend  Lordship  remembers  that  three  years  ago 
the  Swabian  churches  began  to  desire  union  with  the  churches 
of  Lower  Saxony,  and  that  shortly  thereafter  they  sent  hither  a 
draft  of  a  formula  of  agreement.     Inasnuich  as  not  all  the  con- 
troversies of  the  present  time  were  thought  to  be  satisfactorily 
explained  in  the  said  draft,  a  fuller  declaration  was  added  by 

*  Schiitz,  Fita,  IT.,  406. 

t  Rehtmeyer,  III.,  449. 

t  Schiitz,  Fita,  p.  406. 

§  Kollner,  pp.  547  et  seqq. ;  Planck,  VI.,  457. 

|[Loescher,  III.,  255.     Rehtmeyer,  III.,  451. 


426  THE   TORGAU    BOOK, 

US  in  accordance  with  your  Prussian  Corpus.  And  since  all  the 
neighboring  churches  were  permitted  to  indicate  what  they 
thought  ought  to  be  corrected,  changed  or  added,  it  was  revised 
four  times.  The  matter  made  very  tedious  and  slow  progress  in 
this  land :  for  not  a  few  civil  counsellors  and  theologians,  though 
they  did  not  object  to  the  undertaking,  and  did  not 
desiderate  anything  in  the  contents,  nevertheless  clearly 
indicated  that  they  were  afraid  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
would  be  offended  and  irritated  by  such  procedure.  (For  we  are 
indeed  steadfast  confessors.)  However,  at  length  that  document 
was  reduced  to  form  and  sent  to  Tiibingen  in  October  of  last 
year.  But  when  many  there  feared  the  same  thing  (of  which  I 
have  just  now  spoken),  the  document  was  suppressed,  and  was 
not  laid  before  the  Swabian  churches.  Finally  it  was  sent  to 
you  also  to  be  declared  as  formula  of  agreement  and  union 
among  the  churches.  I  would  have  despaired,  had  I  not  thought 
that  it  would  be  the  symbol  of  the  churches  in  this  part  of  Sax- 
ony, although  I  did  not  dare  be  certain  about  it.  But  behold 
the  change  of  the  right  hand  of  the  ^Most  High;  for  when  the 
Elector  of  Saxony  had  discovered  the  deception  of  his  theolo- 
gians in  the  Article  of  the  Supper,  he  began  to  have  doubts  in 
regard  to  their  entire  contention,  and  also  when  he  had  learned 
that  negotiations  were  pending  about  a  formula  of  agreement 
between  the  churches  of  Saxony  and  Swabia.  Therefore,  after 
consulting  certain  Princes,  and  his  own  trustworthy  counsellors, 
he  called  a  convention,  February  15th,  and  inquired  for  a  method 
of  establishing  a  godly  general  concord  in  the  churches  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  of  removing  the  obstacles  to  such  a 
concord.  February  18th  [16th]  the  theologians  reply  that  the 
chief  obstacle  to  concord  is  that  the  Carpus' Doctrmac  Misnicum 
has  been  set  forth  as  a  norm  of  doctrine.  Therefore  they  recom- 
mend that  he  should  order  that  for  the  future  that  Corpus  should 
not  be  regarded  as  a  norm  and  form  of  doctrine  and  confession, 
nor  imposed  upon  anyone,  since  it  contained  certain  errors,  as 
in  regard  to  Free-will,  the  Gospel,  the  Supper,  etc.  They  also 
advised  the  Elector  to  ask  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  be  sent 
to  him  from  the  Saxon  and  Swabian  churches.  It  was  also  de- 
cided at  Lichtenberg  that  personalities  should  be  buried.  The 
Elector  then  wrote  to  Duke  Julius  that  that  formula  be  sent  to 
him,  which  at  first  I  thought  was  not  done  with  good  intent.  He 
had  also  written  in  regard  to  the  same  matter  to  the  Duke  of 
Wiirtemberg.     At  that  very  tiine  (as  I  afterwards  learned")  cer- 


THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  427 

tain  Wiirtemberg,  Baden  and  Henueberg  theologians  had  gath- 
ered at  Maulbronn,  and,  thmking  that  the  Saxon  Formula  was 
too  prolix,  made  a  compend  by  omitting  certain  controversies 
and  by  adding  many  excellent  passages  from  Luther.  This 
compend  was  also  sent  to  the  Elector.  Then  it  came  about  that, 
]\Iay  27th,  the  Elector  sununoned  to  Torgau,  besides  his  own, 
certain  foreign  theologians,  as  ]\Iusculus,  Corner,  Jacob  Andreae, 
Chytraeus  and  myself.  I  was  miserable,  and  was  compelled  to 
go  thither  entirely  against  my  will,  having  no  hope  of  anything. 
The  reasons  you  can  imagine. 

"But,  contrary  to  expectation,  I  found  a  perfectly  pious  and 
proper  zeal  in  the  mind  of  the  Elector.     The  request  was  made 
that  we  examine  both  the  Saxon  and  the  Maulbronn  Formulae, 
and  that  we  report  to  the  Elector  our  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
<'ontroverted  articles.  The  articles  of  both  formulae  were  examined 
in  order,  and  opinions  were  expressed  in  regard  to  each.    And, 
although  there  were  those  who  thought  that  the  IMaulbronn  Form- 
ula should  be  preferred  on  account  of  its  brevity,  nevertheless, 
the  majority  decided  that  the  Saxon  should  be  retained,  but  in 
such  a  way  that  the  passages  from  Luther  and  all  else  that  might 
be  regarded  as  useful  should  be  taken  from  the  Maulbronn  Form- 
ula.   Thus  the  Maulbronn  Preface,  inasmuch  as  it  was  more  vig- 
orous and  better  suited  to  the  present  purpose,  was  adopted. 
In  other  places  certain  passages  from  Luther  were  added.   Also 
certain  of  Luther's  declarations  in  regard  to  the  law  and  the 
Gospel  Avere  added,  and  certain  other  things  were  added.     In 
the  Article  on  Justification  we  refer  to  Luther's  Commentavu 
on  Galatians.    In  the  Article  on  Free-will  we  refer  expressly  to 
Luther's  Be  Servo  Arhitrio  and  to  his  Declaration  on  Genesis 
26.     Mention  of  Philip's  books  is  expunged,  and  for  justifica- 
tion at  this  point  we  refer  to  the  Lichtenberg  resolution.     Thus 
a  formula,  prepared  without  any  opposition  on  the  part  of  the 
Electoral  theologians,  by  the  consent  of  all,  was  laid  before  the 
Elector,  June  7th.     A  statement  was  also  made  and  subscribed 
by  all,  in  which  it  is  distinctly  said  that  what  we  present  is  only 
an  opinion,  which  is  not  to  be  prejudicial  to  any  Estate  or  church 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  that  we  submit  our  work'  to 
the  judgment  of  the  churches  of  the  Augsljurg  Confession   (the 
Calvinists  excepted),  and  yet  we  hope  that  they  who  love  truth 
and  peace  will  not  find  nuich  lacking.    But  primarily  we  meant 
by  thesis  and  antithesis  to  construct  something  certain  in  those 
matters.     But  action  or  deliberation  in  regard  to  personal  mat- 


428  THE   TORGAU    BOOK. 

ters  we  postpone  to  a  future  general  council.  However,  in  our 
Opinion  we  mention  certain  thing's  that  have  reference  to  per- 
sonal matters,  namely,  those  obstacles  to  concord  which  must  be 
rejected,  as  the  Gnindfeste,  Xeue  Catechisnius,  Disputatio 
Gra-mmatica,  Fragstilcl:,  Dressdische  Declaration,  Acta  Hyno- 
(lica,  and  in  general,  other  writings  and  books  which  are 
contrary  to  this  our  Opinion.  For  such  are  the  words  of  the 
formula.  But  the  Elector  promised  to  send  the  Opinion  to  the 
other  orders  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  so  that  each  one  might 
present  his  opinion.  Afterwards  a  general  convention  will  be 
held,  in  which  something  certain  will  be  determined.  It  will  be 
sent  to  you  also,  for  this  I  have  particularly  requested,  for  I 
have  said  that  all  you  seek  is  to  have  the  truth  conserved  by 
rejecting'  the  corruptions.  But  when  those  things  for  which  we 
had  been  called  together  had  been  disposed  of,  we  wrote  in  com- 
mon a  supplication  to  the  Elector  in  behalf  of  the  exiled  Thur- 
ingians.  All  the  Electoral  theologians  signed  it  except  Morlin 
and  ]\Iirus.  And,  as  I  hope,  jNIaster  Gerhard  has  already  been 
conceded  to  the  widowed  Princess  of  Saxony.  And  all  these 
things  in  this  entire  transaction  occurred  aside  from,  beyond, 
above,  contrary  to  the  hope,  expectation  and  thought  of  all.  I 
was  utterly  astounded,  and  could  scarcely  believe  that  these  things 
were  done  when  they  were  done.  It  seemed  like  a  dream  to  me. 
Certainly  a  good,  happy  and  desired  beginning  has  been  made 
toward  the  restoration  of  purity  of  doctrine,  toward  the  elimi- 
nation of  corruptions,  toward  the  establishment  of  a  godly  con- 
fession. But  if  any  can  suggest  something  that  is  useful,  or  if 
there  be  anyone  Avho  can  do  it  better,  the  Church  will  owe  him  a 
debt  of  gratitude. 

"These  things  I  have  desired  on  this  occasion  to  make  known 
to  Your  Most  Reverend  Lordship,  so  that,  as  rumors  are  already 
getting  abroad,  you  might  know  the  truth.  And  that  you  may 
promote  this  difficult  and  salutary  work  by  your  prayers,  your 
counsels  and  your  exertions,  I  do  not  think  that  there  is  any 
need  that  I  should  exhort  you.  That  it  has  been  your  purpose 
that  corruptions  should  be  rejected,  and  that  the  purity  of  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  should  be  retained,  I  have  no  doubt.  Since 
to  this  end  Ave  have  made  a  moderate  beginning  and  have  fol- 
lowed the  Prussian  Corpus  Doctrinae,  I  do  not  doubt  your  will- 
ingness to  promote  this  matter.  I  have  understood  that  there  are 
some  pseudo-Lutherans,  who  indulge  the  hope  that  this  entire 
undertaking  will  be  disturbed  and  obstructed  bv  vou.     But  I 


TIIK    TORCAI'    T>()()K.  429 

said  at  Toi-o-au,  and  I  still  .say.  what  I  thought  and  hoped  of  you. 

"The  Elector  is  reported  to  have  said  that  since  you  have 
shown  that  you  seek  only  the  rejection  of  corruptions  and  the 
conservation  of  the  purity  of  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  since 
this  is  done,  he  hopes  you  will  give  your  approval  in  this  nuitter. 
But  when  the  Fornnila  shall  have  been  sent  to  you  by  the  P^lec- 
tor,  you  will  read  it  and  judge.  The  Elector  is  thinking  about 
reorganizing  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  so  that  it  may  be 
soundly  Lutheran.  He  has  already  negotiated  with  Chytraeus. 
He  negotiated  with  me  also,  but  I  declined  on  account  of  age 
and  for  many  other  reasons.  Dr.  Jacob  has  conducted  himself 
in  this  transaction  altogether  properly  and  well.  Selneceer  has 
also  conducted  himself  very  well  and  has  contributed  not  a  little 
to  advance  matters.  Among  the  Electoral  theologians  there  are 
other  very  good  men.  But  I  cannot  go  into  particulars.  Did 
not  long  distance  stand  in  the  way,  I  shoiild  like  to  speak  with 
you  face  to  face.  Nor  would  that  be  without  profit.  ^lay  (4od 
confirm  and  promote  the  work  which  he  has  begun  for  the  glory 
of  his  name  and  for  the  edification  of  the  Church.  You  can 
communicate  these  things  to  your  colleague,  the  Lord  Bishop 
Wigand.  Salute  my  old  friend,  Doctor  Valerius.  But  especially 
the  Lord  Chancellor.     Etc.     Farewell.     June  23,  Anno  1576."  * 

Andreae  was  appointed  to  solicit  the  cooperation  of  Holstein 
and  Hesse.f  He,  too,  wrote  a  letter  (July  24,  1576)  to  his  old 
enemies  and  calumniators,  Heshuss  and  Wigand.  He  says : 
"Let  not  the  evils  of  former  years  come  to  recollection,  but  re- 
joice over  the  marvelous  things  that  (iod  is  now  doing.  For  the 
following  I  dare  solemnly  to  affirm  to  you  and  to  promise, 
namely:  The  iNlost  Illustrious  Elector  of  Saxony  is  fully  de- 
termined that  flic  (loctrinc  of  Lutlicr,  which  has  in  part  been 
obscured,  in  j^art  corrui)ted,  in  part  openly  and  secretly  eon- 
deiinied.  shall  ])e  restored  pure  and  unadulterated  in  the  schools 
and  churches,  and  therefore  Luther,  that  is,  Christ,  whose  faith- 
ful servant  Luther  was,  lives.  What  more  do  you  wish?  Noth- 
ing is  counterfeited,  nothing  extenuated,  nothing  concealed,  but 
it  is  in  accordance  with  tJie  spirit  of  Luther,  ivhich  is  the  Spirit 
of  Christ.  Candidly,  openly,  piously,  sacredly  are  all  things 
done  for  illustrating  and  promoting  the  truth.  The  hrightness 
of  this  divine  goodness  so  contracts  mjj  eijes  that,  should  I  desire 

*  Eehtmeyer-,  III.,  Beylage  VIII.,  255  ci  seqq. ;  also  in  LeiiekfeM's  His- 
toria  Heshusiana,  pp.  121  et  seqq. 
t  Loesf'her,  III.,  j).  255. 


430  THE    TORGAU    BOOK. 

never  so  mneh,  it  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  be  disturbed  by 
remembering  or  by  seeing  those  misfortunes  that  came  upon  me 
in  former  years.  The  feeling  and  judgment  of  Doctors  Chem- 
nitz and  Chytraeus,  who  were  at  Torgau,  are  the  same.  Often 
were  they  almost  overwhelmed  with  rejoicing  and  wonder  that 
we  were  there  brought  to  such  deliberations.  Truly,  this  is  the 
change  of  the  right  hand  of  the  Most  High,  which  ought  also  to 
remind  us  that  since  the  truth  no  longer  suffers,  we  should  do 
all  things  which  can  contribute  to  the  restoration  of  good  feeling. 
We  ought  to  forget  injuries.  That  which  was  done  by  the  Most 
Illustrious  Elector  with  a  sacred  and  heroic  heart,  we  ought  also 
to  do.  We  are  men,  and  should  remember  that  we  are  men. 
Nor  is  anything  Avithheld  by  us  which  is  due  to  the  truth  and 
to  the  Church.  "When  I  shall  have  seen  that  accomplished  in 
our  churches,  of  which  I  have  hope,  and  shall  not  doubt,  I  am 
ready  to  depart  from  this  life  with  the  greater  rejoicing,  since 
I  shall  have  seen  a  conscientious  and  sacred  concord  restored 
to  our  churches. ' '  * 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  these  two  letters  throw  a  good  deal 
of  light  on  the  methods  employed  to  conciliate  the  Flacianists 
and  to  win  their  endorsement  of  the  Torgau  Book.  Chemnitz 
takes  pains  to  inform  Heshuss  that  there  is  absolutely  no  recogni- 
tion of  IMelanchthon,  that  the  article  on  Free-wdll  is  referred 
expressly  to  Luther's  De  Servo  Arbitrio,  and  to  the  declaration 
made  in  Genesis  26th ;  that  intercession  had  been  made  for  the 
Thuringian  exiles,  and  that  the  University  of  W^ittenberg  was 
to  be  made  genuinely  Lutheran.  Andreae  glorifies  Luther  after 
the  manner  of  the  Flacianists,  declares  that  Luther's  spirit  is 
the  spirit  of  Christ,  and  identifies  Luther  with  Christ.  Surely 
one  should  think  that  Heshuss  and  Wigand  would  find  that 
everything  for  which  they  had  so  long  contended  had  now  been 
conceded,  and  that  Chemnitz  and  Andreae  and  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  were  ready  to  fall  down  before  the  two  Bishops  of 
Prussia. 

On  the  tenth  of  September  Heshuss  makes  reply  to  the  letter 
of  Chemnitz  after  he  has  read  the  Torgau  Book.  But  he  is  not 
wholly  satisfied  with  the  Book,  nor  does  he  express  full  confi- 
dence in  Andreae  and  Selneccer.  He  says  that  if  Andreae,  Sel- 
neccer  and  Crell  have  sincerely  repented,  they  are  to  be  held  as 

*  Original  in  Heppe.  III.,  111.  The  Latin  style  in  this  letter,  and  also 
in  that  by  Chemnitz,  is  far  from  being  classic.  It  may  be  that  the  text  has 
not  been  well  reproduced. 


THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  431 

most  dear  brethren.  In  general  he  is  pleased  with  the  Torgaii 
Book,  but  he  desiderates  some  things,  and  thinks  "that  neces- 
sity demands  that  in  this  fornnila  the  authors  and  patrons  of 
corruptions,  as  Illyricus,  Pfeffinger,  Osiander.  Major,  Calvin, 
Peter  ]\rartyr,  the  letter  of  Philipp  to  the  Elector  of  the  Palatin- 
ate,* should  be  named  and  should  be  pointed  out  to  the  Church 
and  to  posterity,  so  that  in  the  reading  of  books  the  young  may 
be  able  to  avoid  the  errors  which  conflict  with  the  Formula  of 
Concord,"  that  is,  with  the  Torgau  Book.  He  humbly  entreats 
that  care  be  taken  to  keep  the  young  from  reading  the  books 
of  Melanchthon.  He  also  begs  that  a  decree  be  published  and 
promulgated,  announcing  the  abolition  of  the  Corpus  Doctrinae 
Misnicum  as  a  norm  of  doctrine.  Taken  as  a  whole  and  in  its 
generic  aspects,  this  letter  shows  the  intense  hostility  of  the 
Flacianists  to  all  that  is  Melanchthonian.f 

*  After  Heshuss  and  Klebitz  had  been  dismissed  from  Heidelberg  for 
ightmg  over  the  communion  cup,  the  Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  Frederick 
111.,  sent  to  Melanchthon  for  his  judgment  on  the  situation.  The  latter  ap- 
proved the  action  of  the  Elector,  and  suggested  agreement  on  one  form  of 
T^^'  1  Tmu^  ',''  ^^'^  controversy  it  would  be  desirable  to  retain  the  words 
of  Paul:  the  bread  which  we  break  is  the  communion  of  the  body  '  "  He 
objected  to  the  proposition  of  Heshuss:  "The  bread  is  the  true  body  of 
Christ."     C.  E.  IX.,  962.  ^ 

t  The  letter  is  given  by  Hospinian,  Concordia  Biscors,  pp  7'>-73  •  also 
by  Leuckfeld,  Historia  Heshusiana,  pp.  130  et  seqq.  Heshuss  was  at  the 
time  ot  writing  to  ('hemnitz  a  thorough-going  ubiquitarian.  He  declared  that 
it  is  right  to  say,  both  in  the  abstract  and  in  the  concrete:  "The  human 
nature  of  Christ  is  omnipotent,  omniscient,  and  is  to  be  adored  "  Hart- 
knoch,  Freussische  Eirchen-Eistoria,  pp.  463-4. 


CHxVPTER  XXV. 

THE   AUTHORS   OF   THE   TORGAU    BOOK. 

While  seeming  to  wait  for  the  opinious  on  the  Torgau  Book 
it  will  not  be  amiss  to  acquaint  ourselves  more  closely  with  the 
six  men,  who,  more  than  all  others,  are  responsible  for  the  Tor- 
gau Book,  who  signed  it  as  their  "faith,  doctrine  and  confes- 
sion," and  afterwards  changed  it  into  the  Bergic  Book  or  For- 
mula of  Concord.  Sometimes  these  six  are  spoken  of  as  the  first 
and  second  triumvirates,  the  first  being  composed  of  Jacob  An- 
dreae,  ^Martin  Chemnitz  and  Nicholas  Selneccer,  the  second  em- 
bracing David  Chytraeus,  Andrew  ^luseulus  and  Christopher 
Koerner. 

1.     Jacob   Andrcac. 

Jacob  Andreae  was  born  at  Waiblingen  in  Wiirtemberg, 
March  25,  1528.  Because  his  father  was  a  smith  he  was  often 
called  Schmiedlein,  Schmiedjacob.  lie  studied  at  Stuttgart  and 
Tiibingen.  In  1545  he  acquired  the  degree  of  JNIaster  of  Philos- 
ophy, and  was  appointed  Diaconus  in  Stuttgart.  Because  he 
would  not  accept  the  Interim  in  1548  he  lost  his  position.  In 
1553  he  was  made  Superintendent  in  Goppingen,  and  during 
the  same  year  he  received  the  degree  of  Doctor  of  Theology.  In 
the  years  immediately  following  he  was  employed  by  several 
Princes  to  assist  in  introducing  the  Lutheran  doctrine  into  their 
dominions.  In  1557  he  attended  the  Diet  of  Regensburg  as 
court  preacher  to  Duke  Christopher  of  Wiirtemberg.  In  1562 
he  was  made  Chancellor  and  Provost  at  Tubingen.  The  same 
year  he  was  sent,  in  company  with  Christopher  Binder,  to 
Thuringia  to  assist  in  settling  the  strife  that  had  arisen  between 
Victorine  Strigel  and  Flacius  Illyricus  on  Free-will.  Here  he 
approved  and  signed  Strigel's  Declaration  (see  p.  362).  In  the 
next  year  he  assisted  in  composing  a  controversy  in  Strassburg 
that  had  arisen  between  Dr.  John  Marbach  and  Jerome  Zanchi 
on  "the  inamissibility  of  grace."  In  the  year  1568  he  Avas 
invited  to  Brunswick  by  Duke  Julius  to  cooperate  with  Chem- 
nitz in  introducing  the  Reformation  into  the  Duke's. dominions. 
Here  he  took  part  in  composing  the  Church  Order,  and  formed 
the  acquaintance  of  Chemnitz  and  other  theologians  of  Lower 

(432) 


THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  TORGAU  BOOK.  433 

Saxony ;  and  here  it  was  that  he  formally  made  laiown  his  plan 
of  a  consensus  of  doctrine  between  the  Saxon  and  other  Luth- 
eran churches. 

In  the  work  of  concord  he  spent  by  far  the  greater  part  of 
the  next  ten  years.  Of  his  negotiations  with  the  Wittenbergers 
in  1569,  and  of  his  activity  in  the  Zerbst  Convention  in  1570,  we 
have  already  spoken.  But  such  was  his  activity  in  the  work  of 
concord  that  he  is  said  to  have  visited  nearly  all  the  evangelical 
courts,  cities  and  universities  in  Northern  and  Southern  Ger- 
many, and  to  have  made  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
six  journeys.  While  the  theologians  of  Lower  Saxony  were 
elaborating  the  Swabian  Concordia  into  the  Swabian-Saxon  Con- 
cordia, Andreae  was  activily  engaged  in  settling  theological  con- 
troversies in  upper  Germany,  in  introducing  the  Reformation 
into  different  lands,  in  writing,  in  preaching  and  in  discharging 
the  duties  of  his  academic  offices. 

As  we  have  already  learned  Andreae  entered  the  service  of 
the  Elector  August,  April  9,  1576.  For  the  next  five  years 
nearly  he  was  engaged  in  promoting  the  work  of  concord,  and 
in  directing  the  affairs  of  the  churches  and  imiversities  in  Sax- 
ony. In  December,  1580,  he  was  dismissed  from  the  service  of 
August  with  a  show  of  honor,  but  actually  as  a  persona  non 
grata.  His  character  is  hard  to  analyze.  In  common  with  al- 
most every  theologian  of  his  time,  he  was  the  victim  of  calumny 
and  detraction.  But  not  all  the  evil  that  was  said  about  him 
was  false.  Chemnitz  and  Chytraeus  accuse  him  of  being  pap- 
istically  tyrannical.  At  Dresden  he  calumniated  Chemnitz  "high 
and  low,"  to  the  Elector.*  Chytraeus,  after  the  second  revision 
of  the  Bergic  Book,  could  never  hear  the  name  of  Andreae  nor 
speak  it,  without  some  exhibition  of  bitter  feeling  toward  him.f 
Paul  von  Eytzen  in  a  letter  charges  him  with  "malevolence  and 
with  lying  misrepresentation, ' '  %  and  Joachim  ^lorlin  charges 
him  "with  insincerity,  and  as  being  a  person  who  tries  to  unite 
truth  with  falsehood,  light  with  darkness.  Christ  with  Belial. " '  .^ 

Selneccer  makes  an  arraignment  of  him  in  a  writing  signed 
by  his  o^^^l  hand,  January  29,  1579,  that  is  almost  without  a 
parallel  in  the  entire  history  of  accusation.     Here  with  date 

*  Eehtmeyer,  III.,  477.  See  the  Elector 's  gracious  letter  to  Chenmitz. 
Rehtmeyer,  III.,  Beylagen,  No.  83. 

t  Planck,  VI.,  546-7.  See  Arnold's  Unparieyische  Kirchenhistorie,  I; 
Tom.,  813-14. 

tDcinische  Bibliothrc.  TV,  274. 

§  Diinifiche  Biblinthcc.  \ ..  387. 

2S 


434  THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  TOHGAU  BOOK. 

and  place  named  he  gives,  or  affects  to  give,  what  he  heard 
Andreae  say  and  saw  him  do  "from  1576  to  the  day  at  Jiiterbogk 
(19  Jannary.  1579)."  The  exhibition  is  entirely  nnedifying.* 
If  one  half  of  the  accusations  are  only  half-way  true,  then  Jacob 
Andreae  was  a  most  unamiable  and  untrustworthy  character. 
If  they  be  generally  false  then  was  Selneccer  the  ])rince  of  slan- 
derers. His  monument  must  abide  in  shame  and  in  calumnia- 
tion. ^Making  due  allowance  for  jealousy  and  envy  on  the  part 
of  Selneccer  we  must  conclude  that  there  is  good  reason  for 
much  that  is  charged,  and  that  Jacob  Andreae  was  proud,  vain, 
domineering,  disingenuous  and  self-contradictory. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  he  was  indefatigable  in  the  pursuit 
of  ends,  but  not  scrupulous  in  the  choice  of  means.  He  was 
dictatorial  toward  his  equals,  but  diplomatic  toward  his  superiors. 
He  could  be  pugnacious  and  yet  conciliatory.  He  combined  in 
one  person  many  opposite  qualities  of  character.  He  was  dog- 
matic, obstinate,  passionate.  He  is  described,  when  speaking, 
as  vehemens,  extoUens  vocem  sicnt  tuham,  mera  tonitnia  sona- 
hat. 

In  Christology  Andreae  was  a  disciple  of  Brentz.  Hence  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  he  was  a  ubiquitarian.  In 
1562  he  approved  and  signed  Strigel's  Declaration  on  Free-will 
"as  in  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God,  with  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, the  Apology,"  etc.  To  Doctor  Paul  Crell  he  wrote:  "I 
will  hold  abiding  union  with  you  in  doctrine,  and  would  rather 
that  the  earth  should  swallow  me  up  than  that  I  should  depart 
one  nail's  breadth  from  your  Corpus  Doctrinae."j  At  Witten- 
berg he  greatly  lauded  Melanchthon 's  Loci,  saying:  "Com- 
mended by  Luther  himself":  "which  Doctor  Luther  saw,  ap- 
proved, commended."  J 

*  Selneccer 's  arraignment  covers  ten  large  pages  in  jtrint.  It  is  in 
German,  all  except  this  paragraph :  Earo  orat.  Rarissime  connnunicat. 
Non  abolnni  dat  pauperibns.  Raro  vera  loquitur.  Male  de  plerisque 
loquitur.  Dissidia  serit  inter  fratres.  Vindictae  cupididissimus,  Coe- 
terorum  conteniptor,  Solus  vult  esse  omnia.  Contristat  spiritum  sanctum  in 
piis  multis.  Ut  est  lupus  piscis  inter  pisces,  ita  est  ipse  inter  sui  ordinis 
homines ;  non  audit  bene  monentes  nisi  cogatur  superiorum  autoritate ; 
Quod  jam  affirniat  mox  negat;  Jurat  temere  et  provocat  ad  tribunal  Dei 
falso;  Decipit  omnes  qui  eum  non  normet;  est  Ko'/.vKpay/iuv,  dA?.oTpic7riaKOTTog, 
iTTixniptKaKor.  De  nullo  Principe  bene  loquitur  nisi  de  suo;  Est  levis  et 
loquax,  invidus,  insidiosus,  Gnate  Dei,  converte  hominem  vel  iure  coerce. 
Pressel  says  tliat  ' '  through  this  writing  we  get  a  sad  insight  into  the  sad 
conditions  at  court,  where  all  are  hostile  to  all,  and  where  a  system  of 
espionage  and  denunciation  poisons  all  relations."  Pressel  in  Jahrhiicher 
fiir  deutsche  Theologie,  1877,  pp.  239-249. 

t  Strobel,  Literar-GescMchte  Philipp  Melanchthon 's  Loci  Communes, 
p.  225. 

+  Strobel,  ut  supra,  p.  225. . 


THE    AUTHORS    OF    THE    TORGAU    HOOK.  435 

Amoug  the  articles  read  by  Andreae  before  the  Leipzig  and 
Wittenberg  theologians,  and  deposited  in  the  chancery  of  Elec- 
toral Saxony,  is  one  On  Free-will,  which  is  declared  to  be 
"Christian"  and  "according  to  God's  Word  and  the  teaching  of 
our  Christian  Augsburg  Confession."  In  this  article  Andreae 
says :  ' '  Because  God  does  not  believe  on  man  and  for  man,  but 
man  who  becomes  converted  believes  on  God,  therefore  in  con- 
version there  must  be  not  only  the  will  of  God,  but  also  the  will 
of  man,  and  there  can  be  no  conversion  of  man  unless  man  also 
wills,  so  that  in  conversion  the  will  of  God  and  the  will  of  man 
come  together.  Hence  the  will  of  man  is  by  no  me^ns  like  a 
block  or  a  piece  of  wood,  but  it  is  a  power  of  the  living  soul 
which  in  conversion  not  only  suffers  what  God  does  with  it, 
but  also  at  the  same  time  wills  what  is  the  will  of  God."  He 
says  that  when  God  begins  the  work  of  grace  in  man,  "there 
can  be  no  conversion  until  the  man  also  wills  and  assents  to  the 
offered  grace,  which  willing  is  a  work  of  God  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Hence  it  is  clear  and  manifest,  that  in  conversion  God  not  only 
offers  his  grace  to  the  poor  sinner,  but  also  nuist  reach  his  hand 
to  man  in  order  that  he  may  lay  hold  of  the  hand  of  God,  for 
the  promise  can  be  accepted  and  grasped  only  by  faith. ' '  * 

This  is  exactly  in  accord  with  "the  teaching  of  ^^lelanchthon, 
that  when  grace  precedes  and  the  Holy  Spirit  incites,  the  will 
of  man  must  act.     Also  in  the  third  of  his  Six  Senno7is  (1573), 
which  form  the  real  beginning  of  the  work  of  concord,  Andreae  / 
declares  that  ' '  man  is  not  a  clod  or  a  stone. ' ' 

In  the  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ,  as  set  forth  in  these 
articles,  deposited  in  the  Saxon  Chancery,  w^e  detect  only  a  very 
moderate  ubiquitarianism,  while  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per is  identical  in  essence,  and  very  nearly  identical  in  words,  / 
with  that  of  the  AYittenberg  Concord  of  1536.  He  says:  "We 
believe,  teach  and  confess,  in  accord  with  God's  Word  and  the 
teaching  of  the  Christian  Augsburg  Confession,  that  in  the 
Holy  Supper  of  Christ,  where  it  is  held  according  to  his  com- 
mand, wdth  the  bread  and  wine  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ 
are  truly  present  and  are  administered."  He  says  further  that 
not  only  worthy  and  pious  Christians,  but  also  the  unworthy 
and  the  hypocrites  receive  the  true  body  of  Christ,  but  to  their 
condemnation.  And  this  he  declares  to  be  the  doctrine  of  all 
the  churches  which  he  had  visited,  including  those  of  Electoral 
Saxony  and  Swabia,  and  of  the  Universities  of  Leipzig,  Witten- 
*  UnsehuUlige  Xachrichien,  Anno  1718,  pp.  208  et  seqq. 


436  THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  TORGAU  BOOK. 

berg,  Rostock,  Tubingen  and  Strassburg.  In  a  word,  he  names 
almost  all  the  principalities  and  cities  of  Germany,  which,  he 
says,  hold  the  doctrines  contained  in  these  Articles,  though  they 
have  not  one  syllable  in  regard  to  oral  manducation.  He  also 
tells  us  that  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  in 
particular,  and  in  regard  to  other  doctrines,  he  had  vindicated 
the  Wittenberg  theologians  against  certain  suspicions  cast  upon 
them  by  the  churches  in  Low^er  Saxony.* 

Thus  it  is  made  demonstrable  hy  his  own  written  declarations 
that  Jacob  Andreae,  at  the  beginning  of  his  pacification  activity, 
proclaimed  himself  in  complete  accord  with  the  IMelanchthon 
type  of  doctrine,  the  matter  of  ubiquity  alone  excepted,  and  so 
he  has  been  interpreted  by  the  most  learned  and  impartial  his- 
torians.! There  can  be  but  one  opinion  in  regard  to  the  fact. 
Whether  he  was  sincere  in  his  articles,  frank  in  his  negotiations, 
veracious  in  his  representations,  or  chiefly  politic  and  diplomatic, 
we  leave  the  reader  to  determine  for  himself.  The  prime  duty 
of  the  historian  is  to  give  the  facts. 

2.  Martin  Chemnitz. 
Martin  Chemnitz,  the  youngest  of  his  mother's  three  children, 
was  born,  November  9,  1522,  St.  Martin's  Day,  in  Treuenbrietzen 
in  Mark  Brandenburg.  He  received  the  rudiments  of  education 
in  his  native  town  under  Lawrence  Barthold,  who  subsequently 
became  preacher  at  the  Brandenl:)urg  court.  He  it  was  who 
discovered  "a  special  talent"  in  the  young  Chemnitz,  and  in- 
sisted that  he  should  be  kept  in  school.  In  his  fourteenth  year  he 
was  sent  to  Wittenberg,  where  for  half  a  year  he  attended  the 
Trivial  School,  "but  without  benefit,  except  that  he  had  the 
pleasure  of  seeing  distinguished  people  and  of  hearing  Luther 
preach."  He  then  returned  home  and  for  half  a  year  enjoyed 
private  instruction  from  his  former  teacher.  In  1538  he  under- 
took to  learn  the  trade  of  clothmaker.  "But  I  had  no  pleasure 
in  it,  and  did  nothing  well, ' '  he  says  of  himself.  From  Michael- 
mas, 1539,  to  St.  John's  Day,  1542,  he  attended  the  gynmasium 
at  Magdeburg  as  a  free  boarder.  He  then  spent  nearly  a  year 
as  assistant  teacher  at  Calbe  on  the  Saale.  At  Easter,  in  1543, 
he  entered  the  University  of  Frankfort-on-the-Oder,  and  re- 
mained one  year.     Then  he  taught  at  AVritzen,  near  Frankfort, 

*  Uiific1mlclif/e  Nachrielden,  Anno  1718,  pp.  213-227. 

t  Loescher,  m.,  p.  243;  Gieseler,  IV.,  405,  486.  note  24;  Caliuich.  pp. 
20  nn.l  34;   Zcitschrift  fiir  Ff.sf.  Theolofiie,  1853,  p.  352. 


THE    AUTHORS    OF    THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  437 

for  a  year  and  a  half.    In  1545  he  went  to  Wittenberg.     Here 
he  devoted  the  most  of  his  time  to  the  study  of  mathematics  and 
astrology,  and  in  making  predictions,  for  which  he  was  paid  by 
certain  Princes.    He  also  heard  Luther  lecture,  and  preach,  and 
dispute.    When  the  University  of  Wittenberg  was  closed  on  ac- 
count of  the  Schmalkald  War,  he  went  to  Prussia,  arriving  at 
Konigsberg,  ]\Iay  18,  1547.    In  1548,  September  27th,  he  was 
made  a  I^Iagister  at  Konigsberg.  April  5,  1550,  he  was  appointed 
librarian  to  the  Duke.     In  this  position  he  had  access  to  an 
abundance  of  theological  books.     He  also  heard  lectures  in  the 
University  of  Konigsberg  on  medicine  and  law.   In  April,  1553, 
he  returned  to  AVittenberg,  where  he  attentively  heard  Melanch- 
thon.     January  15,  1554,  he  was  received  into  the  Faculty  of 
the  University  of  Wittenberg  and  made  examiner  of  candidates 
for  the  Master's  Degree.    At  the  earnest  request  of  ]\Ielanchthon 
he  began  to  lecture  on  the  Loci  Communes,  June  9th,  but  fin- 
ished only   the  Locus  on   the   Trinity   when   he   was   called  to 
Brunswick  as  assistant  pastor.    April  22,  1555,  he  began  again 
his  lectures  on  :\Ielanchthon 's  Loci.     These  lectures,  edited  by 
Polycarp  Leyser,  w^ere  published  at  Frankfort-on-the-Main   in 
1591.    In  the  year  1555  he  was  married  in  Brunswick  to  Anna, 
a  daughter  of  Hermann  Jeger,  and  became  the  father  of  ten 
children,  three  boys  and  seven  girls.* 

In  the  year  1560.  Chemnitz  published  his  work  on  the  Lord's 
Supper.  In  the  years  1565-1573,  he  published  in  four  parts  his 
great  work  entitled:  An  Examination  of  the  Council  of 
Trent.  In  1570  he  published  the  treatise  On  The  Two  Natures 
of  Christ.  Improved  edition  in  1578.  September  24,  1567,  he 
was  chosen  Superintendent  at  Brunswick  and  was  inducted  into 
office  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  following  month.  His  activity  in 
the  work  of  concord  has  been  in  part  recited.  More  will  be  told 
in  the  next  chapter. 

Of  the  uprightness  of  Chemnitz  as  a  man,  and  of  his  piety 
as  a  Christian,  too  much  cannot  be  said.  His  vision  was  broad,  his 
judgment  was  clear,  his  sympathy  was  generous.  As  a  theolo- 
gian he  was  learned  in  the  Scriptures  and  in  the  writings  of 
the  Fathers  from  Justin  Martyr  to  John  of  Damascus.  His 
acquaintance  with  the  Scholastic  Theology  was  comprehensive 
and  accurate.    He  was  not  a  theological  genius ;  he  was  not  en- 

*  All  the  facts  recited  thus  far  in  this  sketch  are  taken  from  Chemnitz 's 
Mea  Historia,  except  that  about  the  publication  of  his  Loci.  See  Eehtmeyer, 
III.,  279  et  seqq.     Also,  Verein  fur  Beformationsgeschichte,  No.  45,  p.  78. 


438  THE    AUTHORS    OF    THE    TOUCiAU    BOOK. 

dovved  with  a  talent  for  discovering  new  truths ;  but  he  was  a 
great   expounder  of  theological   dogmas.     He   had  the   gift   of 
setting  theological   propositions   in   a   clear  light   and  of  illus- 
trating them  by  appropriate  examples.    He  was  warmly  attached 
to  the  Lutheran  system  of  doctrines,  liut  he  was  not  a  blind 
adherent  either  of  Luther  or  of  ]\[elanchthon,  and  hence  he  did 
not  bind  himself  to  the  words  of  either  master,  though  in  the 
doctrine  of  Free-will  he  was  decidedly  Melanchthonian.     In  the 
most   forcible  way   he   declares   that   man   is  not   converted   as 
Balaam's  ass  speaks,  as  a  stone  is  rolled,  but  by  meditating  on 
the  law  and  the  Gospel,  by  desire,  volition  and  assent,  by  strug- 
gling against  security,  unbelief  and  the  stubbornness  of  the  old 
man.  He  says  expressly:    "In  a  word,  in  conversion  there  must 
occur  and  exist  some  movements  and  actions  by  which  some  ap- 
plication of  the  mind  is  made  by  understanding;  of  the  will,  by 
assenting,  desiring,  willing,  etc.,  and  an  application  of  the  heart 
by  serious  affections  to  those  things  that  have  been  made  known 
to  us  in  the  law  and  in  the  Gospel.    For  where  there  is  absolutely 
no  change  in  the  mind,  in  the  will  and  in  the  heart,  there  no 
new  Icnowledge,  no  reflection,  no  assent,  no  desire,  no  striving, 
no  wrestling,  etc.,  follows,  but  the  entire  man  only  resists  and 
presents  a  contrary  action.     In  a  word,  where  there  is  no  act 
of  knowledge,  of  reflection,  of  desire,  and  of  the  affections,  and 
where  there  is  begun  no  application  of  the  mind,  the  will,  the 
heart,  to  those  things  that  are  set  forth  in  the  law  and  in  the 
Gospel,  there,  it  is  certain,  no  conversion  takes  place  or  exists. 
A  workman  uses  an  inanimate  tool  in  one  way.    The  Holy  Spirit 
works  conversion  in  mind,  will  and  heart.     For  he  causes  us  to 
will  and  to  be  able  to  understand,  to  reflect,  to  desire,  to  assent, 
to  accept,  to  work,  etc."*     He  declares  that  Augustine  "joins 
grace  and  Free-will ' ' ;  that  faith,  hoi>e,  love,  cannot  be  begun 
without  some  action  of  the  "mind  and  will ;  that  when  the  Holy 
Spirit  has  begun  his  work  in  us  "neither  the  mind  nor  the  will 
is  inactive." 

In  his  lectures  on  Melanchthon 's  Loci,  which  he  continued  to 
deliver  to  the  close  of  his  life,  he  asks  the  question:  "Is  the 
will  in  conversion  absolutely  passive,  or  is  the  will  absolutely 
inactive  in  spiritual  movements  and  actions?"  He  answers  the 
question  as  follows:  "Conversion  is  not  a  work  of  such  a  char- 
acter that  it  is  finished  and  perfected  in  all  its  parts  in  a  single 
moment.  But  it  has  its  beginnings,  its  progressive  movements, 
*  Ea-amen,  pars  1.,  Be  Libera  Arhitrio,  Soripturae   Sententia. 


THE    AUTHORS    OF    THE    TOHGAU    BOOK.  439 

by  wliieli  it  is  ])orfected  in  gi*eat  wc^akness.  Tlierefore,  it  is  not 
to  be  thought  that  with  a  careless  and  idle  will  I  am  to  wait 
until  renovation  or  conversion,  according  to  the  degrees  men- 
tioned, shall  have  been  perfected  by  the  action  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  without  any  action  on  my  part.  It  cannot  be  shown  with 
mathematical  precision  when  the  liberated  will  begins  to  act. 
But  when  prevenient  grace,  the  primary  beginnings  of  faith 
and  of  conversion  are  given  to  man,  at  once  there  begins  a 
struggle  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  Spirit,  and  it  is  manifest  that 
that  struggle  cannot  take  place  without  the  action  of  our  will. 
While  Moses  is  yet  living  the  Holy  Spirit  struggles  with  him  in 
opposition  to  his  flesh  in  one  way.  ^Michael  struggles  in  a  dif- 
ferent way  against  the  Devil  about  the  dead  body  of  Moses. 
Also,  in  the  beginning  the  desire  is  quite  obscure,  the  assent  (luite 
languid,  the  obedience  is  quite  slight.  Those  gifts  ought  to  in- 
crease. But  they  increase  in  us  not  as  a  block  of  wood  is  moved 
forward  by  violent  impact,  nor  as  the  lilies  grow,  without  toil 
or  care;  but  by  striving,  struggling,  seeking,  beseeching,  push- 
ing, and  that  not  of  ourselves.  It  is  the  gift  of  God,  liuke  19 :  18. 
Giving  the  talents  to  the  servants  He  says:  Trade  until  I  come, 
IMatt.  15:  26.  He  does  not  say,  hide  them  in  the  earth.  Paul 
also  used  a  clear  word,  2  Tim.  1:6:  I  exhort  thee  to  stir  up  the 
gift  of  God  that  is  in  thee.  He  says  that  God,  by  the  Word  and 
by  the  divine  afflatiis,  precedes  us,  moves  and  impels  the  will. 
But  after  this  movement  of  the  will,  which  has  been  made  from 
above,  the  human  will  is  not  absolutely  passive,  but,  moved  and 
assisted  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  does  not  resist,  but  assents,  and 
becomes  a  co-worker  with  God."  Also:  "Rightly  is  it  said, 
There  are  three  causes  of  a  good  action.  1.  The  Word  of  God, 
2.  The  Holy  Spirit,  3.  The  Human  Will,  provided  it  be  rightly 
and  properly  understood."*  Time  and  again  does  Chemnitz 
use  the  Augustinian  fornmla  :  ^YJlC)l  grace  precedes,  the  tcill 
follows.  He  says  that  "Saul  had  the  Word  of  God,  and  the 
good  Spirit  of  God  urged  him,  that  is,  the  two  causes  were  pres- 
ent. But  because  he  opposed  the  resistance  of  his  will  the 
Holy  Spirit  departed  from  him."* 

In  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  we  have  a  combination 
of  the  language  and  of  the  conceptions  of  both  Luther  and  ^lel- 
anchthon.  AVith  ]\Ielanehthon  lie  affirms  the  true  and  essential 
presence  of  the  body  and  blood  of  C-hrist  with  the  bread  and 
Avine  in  the  Eucharist.  But  he  does  not  base  that  presence  as 
*  Loci   Communes,   Cap.   VII. 


440  THE    AUTHORS    OF   THE    TORCiAU    BOOK. 

Luther  did  in  his  Greater  Confession,  and  as  the  Swabians  did, 
following  him,  on  the  omnipresence  of  the  human  nature  of 
Christ,  but  on  the  words  of  the  institution  and  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  incarnation.  Christ  is  present  wherever  he  has  promised 
to  be  present,  wherever  he  wills  to  be  present.  "The  "Word  of 
God  tells  us  how  Christ,  according  to  his  human  nature,  was 
conceived,  born,  walked  on  the  earth,  was  crucified,  buined,  rose 
again,  was  taken  up  into  heaven  in  a  cloud,  whence  he  shall 
come  again  at  the  last  day.  ^Meanwhile,  until  he  shall  visibly 
return  to  judgment,  his  body  and  his  blood  with  bread  and  wine 
are  administered  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  with  good  reason 
we  can  proclaim,  preach  and  teach."  He  repudiates  the  idea 
that  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  dwell  in  wood  or  in  stone. 
He  held  that  in  the  Supper  there  is  a  threefold  eating :  1.  The 
physical  eating  of  the  bread,  which  is  effected  in  a  purely  nat- 
ural way.  2.  The  sacramental  eating  which  Luther  designated 
as  bodily  or  oral  eating.  3.  The  spiritual  eating  which  is  done 
by  the  heart  through  faith.  The  body  of  Christ  is  united  with 
the  bread  in  the  sacrament.  This  is  the  sacramental  union,  but 
it  is  a  mystery  which  we  cannot  understand  in  this  life.  But 
in  the  eating,  the  body  of  Christ  is  not  bitten,  nor  torn  by  the 
teeth,  neither  does  it  undergo  any  change.  As  the  body  is  truly 
and  essentially  present  with  the  bread,  so  is  it  given  us  to  eat. 
"Hence  it  folloAvs  that  those  who  receive  and  eat  the  sacra- 
ment receive  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  are  truly  and 
essentially  present  and  are  administered  with  the  bread  and 
wine  to  the  mouth.  Thus  through  this  taking  and  eating  the 
body  of  the  Lord  is  united  not  only  according  to  its  power  and 
effect,  but  also  according  to  its  essence ;  not  only  with  the  heart, 
spirit  or  soul  through  faith,  but  also  with  the  heart,  Hesh  and 
blood  of  those  who  receive  the  sacrament,  and  that,  not  in  such 
a  way  that  it  is  a  perishable  food  of  the  stomach,  but  a  heavenly 
eating  for  believers  unto  everlasting  life,  but  for  the  unworthy 
unto  condemnation.  As  to  the  manner  in  which  all  this  takes 
place,  only  he  knows  who  instituted  and  appointed  this  mystery. 
But  in  this  life  we  can  and  should,  neither  by  thought  nor  by 
words,  imagine  or  explain  it." 

Here  in  the  words,  "With  bread  and  Avine"  we  have  the  char- 
acteristic phraseology  of  Melanchthon.  In  the  words,  "eating 
with  the  mouth,"  and  "sacramental  union,"  we  have  the  char- 
acteristic phraseology  of  Luther.  On  the  one  hand  Chemnitz 
stands  opposed  to  that  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  known  as 


THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  TORGAU  BOOK.  441 

Crypto-Calvinism.  On  the  other  hand  he  stands  equally  opposed 
to  the  semi-idolatrous,  semi-Romanizing  view  that  arose  among 
the  Flacianists  (see  p.  323  et  seqq.).  All  things  considered  he 
stands  closer  to  Luther  than  he  does  to  Melanchthon.  "He  was 
not  a  reformatory  spirit.  Moreover,  he  lacked  the  originality,  the 
poesy  and  the  living,  the  scientifically  fruitful  faith-intuition 
of  a  Luther ;  but  he  was  the  first  and  the  most  important  theolo- 
gian proceeding  from  the  German  Reformation."* 

3.     Nicholas  Selneccer. 
Nicholas  Selneccer  was  born  at  Hersbruck,  near  Niirnberg, 
December  5  or  6,  1530.     His  father  was  a  notary,  but  subse- 
quently became  town-clerk  to  Niirnberg.    He  was  also  numbered 
among   the    personal    friends   of   Melanchthon.     Nicholas    pos- 
sessed extraordinary  nuisical  talents.    At  the  age  of  twelve  years 
he  was  made  organist  in  the  court-chapel  at  a  -salarj^  of  eight 
Thaler  and  two  cart  loads  of  wood.    He  narrowly  escaped  being 
carried  to  Bohemia  or  to  Spain  as  organist  to  King  Ferdinand. 
He  pursued  classical  studies  in  the  Niirnberg  Gymnasium.     At 
the  age  of  nineteen  he  was  ready  for  the  University,  but  did  not 
begin  his  university  studies  at  Wittenberg — and  then  as  a  law- 
student — until  1550.     ^Melanchthon,  who  perceived  the  talents, 
the  modesty  and  the  piety  of  the  young  man,  turned  his  atten- 
tion to  theology,  which  henceforth  he  pursued  with  great  alac- 
rity.   Melanchthon  was  his  favorite  instructor,  and  in  later  years 
(1570)  he  declared  that  one  of  the  greatest  blessings  of  his  life 
was  that  he  "had  had  Melanchthon  as  his  instructor,  had  heard 
him,  had  come  into  almost  daily  contact  with  him,  had  conversed 
with  him,  and  had  consulted  him."     In  1554  he  obtained  the 
Master's  degree,  and  soon  began  to  lecture  in  the  University  on 
philosophical   and   theological  subjects.     In   1557   he   went   to 
Dresden,  first  as  court  preacher,  and  then  as  director  of  the 
court  choir.     He  was  also  entrusted  with  the  education  of  the 
Electoral  Prince,  born  February  21,  1554.    He  was  also  active 
while  at  Dresden  with  his  pen.     In  1565  he  followed  a  call  to 
Jena  where  the  Philippistic  tendency  was  in  vogue.     Two  years 
later,  upon  the  accession  of  Duke  William,  he  lost  his  position. 
He  then  went  to  Leipzig  where  he  became  superintendent  and 
pastor  of  the  St.  Thomas  Church,  and  professor  of  theology  in 
the  L^niversity.     He  lectured  with  great  applause  on  Melanch- 
thon's  Loci,  and  defended  the  churches  of  the  Electorate  against 
*  Dr.  Theodor  Pressel,  Martin  Chemnitz,  p.  70. 


442  THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  TOHGAU  BOOK. 

attacks  nuide  upon  them  by  the  theologians  of  Jena.  In  the 
preface  to  his  Commentary  on  Genesis,  he  expressed  his  decided 
agreement  with  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  PhUippicmn*  which  was 
now  the  doctrinal  standard  of  the  Electorate.  In  1570,  without 
relinquishing  his  offices  at  Leipzig,  he  accepted  a  call  to  become 
General  Superintendent  and  court-preacher  in  Wolfenbiittel, 
where  he  tried  to  introduce  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum 
as  the  norm  of  doctrine.  In  1573  he  published  his  Institutio 
Keligionis  Christianae,^  and  the  next  year  he  returned  to  Leipzig 
as  superintendent,  pastor  and  professor  of  theology.  He  was 
recognized  as  leader  in  the  Lichtenberg  Convention  and  wrote 
the  Opinion  addressed  to  the  Elector;  and  while  he  contributed 
little  or  nothing  directly  to  the  Torgau  Book,  nor  to  the  Bergic 
Book,  he,  nevertheless,  cooperated  so  heartily  with  Andreae  and 
Chemnitz  that  they  three  have  been  justly  designated  as  "the 
triumvirate."  a  designation  given  by  Chytraeus  in  1581. 

Selneccer  remained  in  his  office,  as  Superintendent  at  Leipzig, 
until  May  17,  1589,  when  he  was  dismissed,  because  he  persisted 
in  warning  his  hearers  against  the  errors  of  Calvinism.  Later 
he  became  Superintendent  at  Hildesheim,  where  he  faithfully 
discharged  the  duties  of  his  office.  He  died  at  Leipzig,  ]May  24, 
1592.  His  body  was  buried  Avith  great  pomp  in  the  St.  Thomas 
Church. 

In  theology,  Selneccer  was  a  pronounced  IMelanchthonian. 
This  is  shown  not  only  by  his  expressions  of  admiration  for  the 
great  Preceptor  and  by  his  numerous  vindications  of  him  against 
the  calumniations  of  enemies,  but  especially  by  his  own  theologi- 
cal treatises.  The  Paedagogia  CJirisfiana  is  Melanchthonian  to 
the  core.  The  same  in  general  is  true  of  his  Institutio  Keligionis 
Christianae,  and  is  especially  true  in  regard  to  the  treatment  of 
Free-will,  where  he  uses  the  characteristic  language  and  quota- 
tions employed  by  Melanchthon.  Among  other  things  he  says: 
"The  human  will  cannot  be  called  the  cause  of  conversion,  .since 
the  thing  to  be  converted  is  not  the  thing  converting.  But,  since 
it  is  named  sunergon  (co-worker),  it  is  shown  to  be  notliing  else 
than  the  will  not  inactive. 

"These  su]).iects  are  expounded  in  this  way  for  the  purpose 

*  Strobe],  Lilcratur-Geschichic,  pp.  2113-4.  Selnpccer  wrote  as  follows  in 
regard  to  Melanchthon 's  Loci :  ' '  Non  melior  liber  est  nllus  post  biblia 
Christi,  Qiiam  qui  doctrinae  Corpusque  locique  vocantur. ' '     Vt  supra,  p.  224. 

t  The  title-page  of  each  volume  bears  the  date  1573.  The  dedicatory 
epistle  of  Part  I.  is  dated  September,  1572.  The  dedicatory  epistle  of 
Part  Tl.  is  dated  December,  1571. 


THE    AUTHORS    OF   THE    T0K(;AU    BOOK.  443 

of  instruction,  and  they  are  true,  and  are  acceptable  to  God. 
For  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  convert  a  stone  or  a  block  or  an 
ox  or  an  ass,  but  a  human  being  who  is  endowed  by  God  with 
reason,  and  is  created  in  the  image  of  God,  and  who  is  able  and 
ought  to  hear,  to  reflect  and  to  understand.  And,  though  man 
in  his  own  nature  since  the  Fall  has  become  the  enemy  of 
God,  nevertheless,  as  an  enemy  endowed  with  reason,  he  hears, 
understands  and  receives  the  reconciliation  offered  him  by  him 
whose  enemy  he  is,  and  permits  himself  to  be  moved  and  to  l)e 
turned  to  peace  and  becomes  a  friend.  Thus  man,  hearing  the 
promise  of  the  Gospel  and  seeing  the  ambassador  of  God  offer- 
ing grace  and  peace,  that  is,  hearing  the  Word  and  perceiving 
the  moving  of  the  Spirit  in  his  heart,  does  not  repel  or  reject 
the  offered  grace,  but,  joyfully  inclined,  submits  to  the  divine 
voice  and  movement,  as  Paul  says :  Lord  what  wilt  thou  have 
me  do?"* 

Also:  "Although  the  depravity  and  perversity  of  our  nature 
is  so  great  that  the  imagination  of  the  human  heart  is  evil  from 
childhood.  Gen.  8,  and  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  against  God, 
Rom.  8.  and  contumacy  in  many  ways  resists  God,  as  has  been 
fully  shown  in  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  nevertheless,  in  con- 
version itself  the  Holy  Spirit  so  reforms  the  reason  and  so  moves 
the  will  that  man  by  nature  an  enemy  of  God  and  a  child  of 
wrath,  now  becomes  a  friend  of  God,  and  a  son  and  an  heir  of 
God,  understands  and  joyfully  embraces  God's  goodness  and 
grace,  assents  to  the  promise  and  in  all  things  submits  to  the 
will  of  God,  not  indeed  by  natural  human  reason  and  will,  but 
by  the  grace  and  by  the  efficacious  action  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  instructs  and  illumines  the  reason  and  heals  and  reforms 
the  will,  but,  nevertheless,  in  such  a  way  that  the  reason  and  will 
are  not  inactive,  but  both  suffering  and  in  their  own  order  doing 
something,  and.  to  use  the  words  of  Luther,  cooperating  with  the 
Spirit  operating  in  us  and  renewing  us  not  without  us,  that  is, 
not  contumaciously  resisting  or  spurning,  but  admitting  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  accepting  his  grace  and  obeying  and  serving 
God,  while  the  Holy  Spirit  moves  and  assists."  t 

And  on  pp.  284-5,  after  quoting  1  Cor.  3  :  "For  we  are  workers 
together  with  God,"  Selneccer  says:  "Hence  usually  it  is  said 
that  there  are  three  causes  of  a  right  and  good  action,  namely, 
the  Word  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  human  will  not  resist- 
ing the  Word  of  God,  nor  shaking  off  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  Saul 

^  Page  88.  t  Pages  282-3. 


444  THE    AUTHORS    OF    THK    TORGAU    BOOK. 

shook  him  off  by  his  own  will."  On  pp.  294-5  he  quotes  the 
famous  dicta  of  Chrysostom  and  Basil :  ' '  God  draws,  but  draAvs 
him  who  is  willing";  "Only  will  and  God  anticipates,"  and 
says :  ' '  The  will  is  not  inactive,  nor  does  it  behave  like  a  statue, 
but  it  does  something.  For  the  will,  Avhen  moved  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  does  not  hold  itself  as  a  statue.  Indeed,  the  power  of 
following  the  drawing  of  God  does  not  reside  naturally  in  man. 
But  when  the  Holy  Spirit  is  received  man  acquires  the  power 
of  obeying,  and  this  is  only  of  grace.  .  .  .  The  ability  to  obey 
God  is  not  in  our  power.  This  is  true  of  man  before  grace,  with- 
out the  Word  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

"Man  is  able  to  obey  God  when  He  calls.  This  is  true  of  man 
admonished,  moved,  and  drawn  by  grace,  by  the  "Word  and  by 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

"The  will  is  not  absolutely  passive.  This  is  true  in  two  re- 
spects :  1.  As  already  said,  in  external  discipline.  2.  In  respect 
of  the  will  moved  by  the  Son  of  God. 

"The  will,  as  the  attendant  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  old 
saying  proves  :    '  When  grace  precedes,  the  will  follows. '  ' ' 

' '  In  the  internal  renewal  of  the  heart  three  causes  concur : 
The  Word  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  will  obeying.  This 
is  true  of  man,  who  has  the  Word  of  God  and  the  beginnings 
of  the  renewing  of  the  Spirit,  or  of  the  regenerate  when  they 
stand  in  spiritual  conflict." 

In  his  Necessary  Beply  to  the  Calumnies  of  the  Placianists  at 
Altenhurg,  he  denounces  his  antagonists,  heaps  upon  them  the 
vilest  epithets,  defends  IMajor's  proposition  that  Good  Works 
are  Necessary  to  Salvation,  quotes  Brentz  in  defense  of  the  same 
proposition,  calls  himself  "the  grateful  disciple  of  Melanchthon, " 
defends  the  theological  faculties  of  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig,  and 
prays:  "God  preserve  unto  us  our  dear  old  preceptors  and 
teachers,  ]\Iajor,  Pfeffinger,  Camerarius,  Weller  and  others.  We 
have  only  too  few  of  them.  God  help  us.  their  disciples  and 
pupils."  In  this  Beply  he  has  a  chapter  On  Synergism,  in  which 
he  says :  '  *  All  power  and  operation  are  alone  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  through  the  Avord  spoken  kindles  and  strengthens  true  faith 
and  comfort  in  the  hearts  of  men.  But  to  this  end  man's  will 
is  required  according  to  the  order  Avhich  God  has  established, 
because  God  himself  challenges  the  Avill  of  man. 

"And  the  will  of  man  is  not  a  material  or  physical  subject, 
like  straw,  which,  when  laid  on  the  fire,  must  burn,  but  it  is  a 
voluntary  subject,  Avhich  ought  to  hear,  attend  to  and  follow." 


THE    AUTHORS    OF    THK    TORGAU    BOOK.  445 

In  expounding-  the  doctrine  of  Free-will,  Selneccer  appeals 
to  Brentz's  Apology  (see  p.  362)  and  to  the  famous  passage  in 
St.  Bernard's  Grace  and  Free-ivill  (see  p.  362)  in  support  of 
his  own  position — thus  showing  that  he  understood  both  Brentz 
and  St.  Bernard  as  teaching  that  there  is  some  activity  of  the 
will  in  the  appropriation  of  salvation.  But  Selneccer,  like  INIel- 
anchthon,  taught  with  all  emphasis  that  man  does  not  operate 
meritoriously ,  or  by  the  strength  of  his  natural  powers,  but  by 
not  resisting,  by  not  rejecting,  by  assenting,  by  consenting,  by 
accepting,  by  submitting  to  the  will  of  God,  by  obeying  the  divine 
call,  in  which  the  mind  and  the  will  are  not  inactive.* 

His  doctrine  of  the  Coinmunicatio  Idiomatum  is  set  forth  in 
the  Wittenberg  Summary  and  also  in  a  monograph  published  at 
Heinrichstadt  in  1571.  He  declares  "that  eternity  and  infinity 
are  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  human  nature."  Both  natures 
retain  their  own  properties,  and  the  actions  of  both  natures 
are  proper  and  peculiar.  There  is  no  confusion,  but  the  prop- 
(^rties  are  not  to  be  separated.  Christ  is  present  wherever  he 
has  promised  to  be  present,  ' '  as  in  the  Supper,  though  this  takes 
place  contrary  to  and  above  every  natural  attribute":  that  is, 
Selneccer  advocates  a  voli-presence,  or  a  multivoli-presence.  in 
distinction  from  the  Swabian  doctrine  of  ubiquity.f  He  bases 
the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  on  the  words  of  institu- 
tion: "  'This  is  my  body,  this  is  my  blood.'  But  here  nothing 
is  said  about  ubiquity  or  locality.  Nor  should  the  pious  dispute 
about  these  things."  He  commits  the  mode  of  the  presence  to 
oumipotence  and  to  the  verity  of  Christ. t 

"    4.     David  CJiytraeus. 

David  Chytraeus  (Kochhaff),  sometimes  called  the  last  of  the 
Lutheran  Fathers,  was  born  at  Ingelfingen,  near  Swabian  Hall, 
in  Wiirtemberg,  February  26,  1530.  He  received  the  rudiments 
of  his  education  at  Gemmingen,  where  he  advanced  rapidly  in 
his  knowledge  of  the  Latin  language.  At  the  age  of  nine  years 
he  entered  the  University  of  Tubingen.     In  the  year  1544  he 

*  See  the  IVittenherg  Summary,  XCA'III.  where  it  is  said,  agaiust  the 
Manichaeans',  the  Pelagiaus,  the  Schwenokfelders,  the  Enthusiasts  and  the 
Anabaptists:  "We  say  that  in  conversion  these  three  always  concur:  The 
Word  of  God,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  will  of  man  assenting  and  not  re- 
sisting the  Word  of  God."  This  Summary  was  signed.  May  5,  1570,  by 
Selneccer  in  connection  with  the  Wittenberg  theologians. 

t  See  The  Wittenherg  Summary.  F.  2;  Gieseler,  IV.,  463-4,  note  2-5. 

t  Instituiiones.  TI..  500,  501. 


446  THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  TORGAU  BOOK. 

was  made  ^Majiistei'  under  the  name  David  Kocliliaff.  In  that 
same  year  he  went  to  Wittenberg,  bearing  from  Brentz  a  letter 
of  commendation  to  Luther,  and  to  IMelanchthon  one  of  similar 
character  from  George  Schwartzerd  of  Bretten.  Melanehthon 
inquired  of  him:  "Art  thou  already  a  ]Magisterf"  and  asked 
him  whether  he  had  studied  Greek.  When  the  boy  answered  in 
Ihe  affirmative,  INIelanchthon  handed  him  a  copy  of  Thucydides 
and  asked  him  to  translate  a  passage  into  Latin.  This  he  did  so 
entirely  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  great  preceptor  that  he  ex- 
claimed :  ' '  Rightly  art  thou  ]\Iagister,  and  thou  shalt  be  as  dear 
to  me  as  a  son."  ^Melanehthon  was  as  good  as  his  word;  he  at 
once  admitted  the  young  David  to  his  table  and  took  him  into 
his  house — "his  David" — where  he  spent  six  years  in  the  con- 
fidence and  friendship  of  his  teacher,  who  directed  him  in  all 
the  disciplines  of  the  university.  Luther's  preaching  made  a 
profound  impression  upon  him.  lie  also  heard  lectures  on 
philosophy,  on  medicine  and  on  the  natural  sciences.  In  1547  we 
find  him  in  Tubingen,  but  in  1548  he  returned  to  Wittenberg. 
From  the  year  1550  to  the  day  of  his  death,  June  25,  1600,  he 
resided  at  Rostock,  first  as  instructor  in  the  Paedagogium,  and 
then  as  professor  in  the  University.  He  was  honored  with  calls 
to  numerous  places  of  service,  but  he  declined  them  all.  He  was 
active  in  almost  all  the  important  ecclesiastical  movements  of 
his  day.  His  most  important  work  is  his  History^  of  tlie  Augs- 
burg Confession,  German  in  the  year  1576,  Latin  in  the  year 
1578.  His  Catechesis,  based  on  INIelanehthon's  Loci,  1556,  and  in 
many  revised  editions,  was  much  used  in  schools  and  universities. 
His  son,  David  Chytraeus,  published  at  Hanover,  in  1614,  Ora- 
tiones  et  Epistolae  Davidis  Chytraei  Theologi  in  a  volume  of 
1284  pages.  In  the  year  1720,  Otto  Frid.  Scliiitz  published,  at 
Hamburg,  Tit  a  Davidis  Chytraei  in  two  volumes,  aggregating, 
with  Appendix,  1049  pages.  These  two  books  contain  a  large 
amount  of  matter  pertaining  to  the  history  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  during  the  second  half  of  the  sixteenth  century. 

In  theology,  Chytraeus  represents  the  jNIelanchthon  type  of 
doctrine  with  clearness  and  consistency.  This  is  shown  unequiv- 
ocally in  -what  he  wrot'e  on  Free-will,  on  the  Person  of  Christ, 
and  relatively  on  the  Lord's  Supper. 

1.  In  the  GatecJiesis,  edition  of  1558,  the  question  is  asked : 
"What  are  the  causes  of  faith?"  The  answer  is  as  follows: 
"There  are  three": 

"I.     The  Holy  Spirit  awakening  in  the  mind  the  knowledge  of 


THE    AUTHORS    OF    THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  A47 

the  Gospel  in  regard  to  the  remission  of  sins  for  the  sake  of 
Christ,  and  moving  the  will  so  that  it  assents. 

''II.     The  Word  of  God  or  the  Gospel. 

"III.  The  mind  and  will  of  man  assenting  to  the  Holy  Spirit, 
struggling  Avith  doubt  and  believing  the  Gospel.'' 

2.  In  the  Commcntarxj  on  Genesis,  edition  of  1558,  we  have 
the  following:  "The  three  causes  of  faith  are  to  be  united, 
namely : 

"The  Holy  Spirit. 

"Hearing  and  meditating  on  the  Word  of  God. 

"The  will  of  man,  which  is  not  absolutely  inactive,  or  abso- 
lutely passive :  but  it  does  something.  It  does  not  resist,  but  it 
assents  to  the  Holy  Spirit  who  operates  through  the  Word.  The 
doctrine  of  the  cooperation  of  the  will  {de  siineryia  voluntatis) 
we  must  firmly  fix  in  our  minds,  so  as  not  to  nourish  indifference, 
nor  security,  nor  unbelief,  nor  despair  in  ourselves.  Let  the 
following  sure  and  unanswerable  arguments  be  kept  constantly 
in  view : 

"I.  Since  the  promise  of  grace  is  universal,  God  wills  that 
all  men  shall  be  saved.  Also,  as  I  live  I  will  not  the  death  of 
the  sinner.  And  it  must  not  be  thought  that  there  are  contra- 
dictory wills  in  God.  If  this  be  true,  then  it  follows  that  there 
is  some  cause  in  us  why  some  persons  assent  to  the  promise,  and 
why  others  do  not  assent.  Luke  13 :  I  would  have  gathered  you, 
but  ye  would  not. 

"II.  It  is  evident  that  in  the  wills  of  the  pious,  who  strive 
to  assent  to  the  promise  of  the  Gospel,  there  are  great  and  severe 
struggles  and  conflicts,  as  in  Abraham,  when  he  was  striving 
with  the  angel ;  everyone  experiences  this  daily  in  prayer.  But 
if  the  Will,  like  the  wax  on  which  an  imprint  is  made,  were  only 
passive  and  were  absolutely  without  any  action  at  all,  then  there 
would  be  no  resistance,  as  when  water  is  poured  into  a  vessel. 

"III.  In  1  Cor.  3  and  in  2  Cor.  6,  Paul  calls  us  coworkers 
with  God. 

"IV.  We  must  not  yield  to  doubt,  distrust  and  security. 
The.se  causes  are  strengthened  because  of  the  teaching  of  the 
Alanichaeans. 

"V.  Because  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  but  is  just,  that 
is,  truly  impartial  to  all  according  to  the  one  rule  which  he  has 
given.  Hence  there  is  some  cause  in  us  why  some  accept  the 
promise  and  why  others  are  rejected." 

This  is  the  ]\Ielanchthonian  doctrine  of  Free-will  almost  word 


448  THE  AUTHORS  OF  THE  TORGAU  BOOK. 

for  word,  in  the  essential  features,  as  it  is  set  forth  by  Melaneh- 
thon  himself  in  the  Loci.  In  an  Opinion  on  the  Bergic  Book, 
1578,  in  company  with  the  other  theological  professors  of  Ro- 
stock, he  declares  that  the  "three  concurring  causes  of  conver- 
sion and  repentance ' '  and  the  dictum :  ' '  God  draws,  but  draws 
those  who  believe,"  should  have  been  explained,  as  had  been 
done  in  the  Torgau  Formula,  and  should  not  have  been  un- 
ceremoniously condemned.*  In  his  Oration  on  the  Study  of 
Theology,  delivered  before  the  University  of  Rostock,  he  de- 
clares that  "in  conversion  the  AVill  ought  to  assent  to  the  Gospel 
and  not  resist  it,  and,  so  long  as  the  Will  resists,  no  conversion 
takes  place,  and  when  the  Will  assents,  it  does  not  assent  un- 
willingly or  by  constraint,  but  voluntarily. ' '  t 

3.  In  this  same  Oration  he  has  a  section  on  The  Person  of 
CJirist,  in  which  he  says:  "I  have  always  held,  and  hold,  that 
there  is  a  constant  difference  between  the  divine  and  eternal 
creative  nature  and  the  human  created  nature,  which,  by  the 
personal  union  and  exaltation  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  is  car- 
ried above  all  angels  and  men,  though  not  made  equal  to  the 
divine,  much  less  absorbed  by  the  divine  and  destroyed.  Nor 
do  I  wish  knowingly  and  willingly  ever  to  defend  the  Eutychians, 
or  the  madness  of  other  sects,  which  have  been  condemned  by 
the  judgment  of  the  true  Church.  The  personal  union  is  never 
defined  otherwise  than  as  a  wonderful  and  ineffable  copulation 
of  the  two  natures  in  the  person  of  the  Son  of  God  in  such  a  way 
that  the  second  person  of  the  Deity,  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
human  nature,  assumed  in  the  womb  of  ]\Iary,  constitute  only  one 
person  or  one  individual  Christ,  on  account  of  which  union  or 
most  intimate  communion  of  natures,  all  the  properties  and  ac- 
tions which  belong  originally  to  one  nature  only  are  really  and 
truly  communicated  to  the  whole  person  of  Christ  in  the  con- 

*  Schiitz,  Viiu,  II.,  466.  To  the  same  effect  is  the  judgment  of  his  con- 
temporaries, the  Wismar  theologians.  Schiitz,  II.,  p.  436.  In  the  Opinion 
of  the  Eostock  divines  (1578)  on  the  matter  of  concord  in  the  Church  it  is 
declared  that  ' '  the  doctrine  of  Free-^Yill  in  the  Latin  Confession  and  Apol- 
ogy was  so  shaped  in  words  as  not  expressly  to  condemn  the  doctrine  of  the 
Papists  and  the  Synergists,  as  at  the  time  of  the  delivery  of  the  Confession 
(as  the  Acta  prove)  the  Papists  declare  that  they  agree  with  us  absolutely 
on  this  subject.  Eightly,  therefore,  should  the  passages  of  the  Confession 
and  Apology  be  omitted,  since  they  contribute  nothing  to  the  sure  confirma- 
tion of  our  doctrine  or  to  the  refutation  of  the  Synergists. ' '  Schiitz,  Vita, 
II.,  p.  466. 

t  Oratinnes,  p.  490.  This  Oratio  is  without  date,  but  that  it  was  delivered 
while  some  of  tlie  subjects  of  which  it  treats  were  in  violent  controversy 
'  *  among  some  adherents  of  our  Confession, ' '  is  made  certain  by  numerous 
references. 


THE    AUTHORS    OF   THK    TOHGAU    BOOK.  449 

Crete:  nor  ean  there  be  any  other  real  and  true  coHununicatio 
idiomatum  in  the  person  of  Christ." 

He  asserts  that  Christ  is  present  wherever  he  has  promised  iu 
his  Word  to  be  present.  Ubiquity,  in  the  Swabian  sense,  he  con- 
demns and  execrates,  and  regards  as  ' '  monstrous. ' '  * 

4.  In  the  Catechesis,  editions  of  1557  and  1579  alike,  in 
answer  to  the  question,  "What  is  the  Lord's  Supper?"  he  gives 
the  answer :  ' '  The  Lord 's  Supper  is-  a  holy  act  instituted  by 
the  Son  of  God,  in  which,  by  taking  bread  and  wine  the  true 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  are  taken. ' '  f  In  the 
Oration  from  which  we  have  quoted  twice  he  treats  the  Lord's 
Supper  wholly  on  its  practical  side  as  "a  memorial  of  Chi'ist's 
great  love  towards  us."  In  a  Judgment  on  the  Frankfort  Recess 
dated  August  14,  1558,  the  Rostock  Theological  Faculty  writes: 
' '  Because  the  words  of  Christ :  Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body 
which  is  given  for  you,  this  is  my  blood  which  is  shed  for 
you,  are  so  often  repeated  word  for  word  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
as  are  no  other  means  of  faith,  no  pious  Christian  who  believes 
that  Christ  our  Lord  is  truthful  and  almighty  can  doubt  that 
these  words  are  to  be  understood  as  they  read,  namely,  that  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  held  according  to  the  institution  of  Christ, 
the  body  and  the  blood  of  Christ  are  truly  and  essentially  pres- 
•ent,  and  are  administered  to  those  who  receive  the  sacrament,  as 
this  article  was  clearly  set  forth  in  the  Apology  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  as  afterwards  at  Schmalkald  Luther  and  all  the 
other  theologians  understood  this  article,  which  reads  as  follows : 
Of  the  Lord's  Supper  we  hold  that  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  are  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ  and  are  admin- 
istered to  and  received  not  only  by  pious,  but  also  by  wicked 
Christians."! 

It  is  the  generic  Lutheran  view  of  the  Lord's  Supper  that  is 
here  held,  in  expressed  antithesis  to  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation  on  the  one  hand,  and  in  expressed  anti- 
thesis to  the  Sacramentarian  doctrine  of  a  virtual  presence  on 
the  other  hand.  There  is  no  intimation  of  the  extreme  position 
which  had  been  asserted  and  proclaimed  by  Flacianists  and 
others.  And  as  to  Chytraeus's  thoroughly  Melanchthonian  atti- 
tude in  general,  we  have  that  set  forth  in  a  letter  dated  May  22. 
1574,   in  which  he  affirms  his  unqualified  endorsement  of  the 

*  Orationes,  pp.   48o-7. 

tPp.  F.  2,  131. 

J:  Sehiitz,   Vita   Chi/tiaei.  I.,   p.   345. 

29- 


450  THE    AI'THORS    OF    THE    TORGAU    BOOK. 

Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum,  and  of  the  Examen  Ordinan- 
dorum,  which  had  been  published  twenty-two  years  before  that 
time,  and  before  the  controversies  had  arisen.* 

5.     Andrew  Musculus. 

Andrew  Musculus  was  born  at  Schneeberg,  in  Saxony,  in  the 
year  1514.  He  received  his  preparatory  education  at  the  Latin 
School  in  his  native  town.  In  1531  he  entered  the  University  of 
Leipzig.  Avhere  he  received  the  Bachelor's  degree,  February  21, 
1534.  He  then  was  employed  as  a  private  teacher  of  some  young 
nobles  in  Amber g.  In  1538  he  entered  the  University  of  Wit- 
tenberg, where  he  obtained  the  Master's  degree,  September  18, 
1539.  He  attended  the  lectures  of  both  Melanchthon  and  Luther. 
For  the  latter  he  conceived  a  great  admiration,  and  regarded  him 
as  the  greatest  man  who  had  lived  on  the  earth  since  the  days 
of  the  apostles,  declaring  that  ' '  there  is  as  great  a  difference  be- 
tween the  dear  old  teachers  and  Luther  as  there  is  between 
the  light  of  the  sun  and  that  of  the  moon :  and  beyond  all  doubt, 
the  ancient  Fathers,  even  the  best  and  chiefest  among  them, 
as  Hilary  and  Augustine,  had  they  lived  contemporaneously  with 
him,  would  not  have  hesitated  to  deliver  the  lamp  to  him,  as  the 
saying  is."  Of  course,  then  he  Avas  a  disciple  of  Luther  and  not 
of  Melanchthon.  Indeed,  he  has  been  characterized  as  an  anti- 
Philippistic  zealot.  Luther's  steadfastness  and  decision  suited 
his  type  of  mind,  which  was  decidedly  polemical,  and  which  was 
sharpened  in  the  direction  of  polemics  by  the  circumstances  that 
surrounded  him.  One  of  his  biographers  says  that  "polemic  was 
the  element  of  his  life,"  and  that  "he  always  saw  lions  and 
dragons  in  his  opponents,  and  felt  himself  called  upon  to  couch 
a  lance  and  sally  forth  against  them." 

In  the  year  1541  he  found  employment  in  the  University  of 
Frankfort-on-the-Oder.  In  the  year  1544  he  was  made  ordinary 
professor  in  the  University  and  chief  pastor.  Subsequently  he 
was  made  General  Superintendent.  In  these  positions  he  re- 
mained to  the  day  of  his  death,  September  29,  1581.  He  preached 
by  preference  on  death,  the  judgment,  damnation,  the  devil, 
hell,  the  end  of  the  world,  in  the  most  realistic  manner.  His 
preaching  was  popular,  though  his  sermons  were  generally  two 
hours  in  length.  He  enjoyed  the  protection  and  support  of  the 
Prince,  and  exerted  wide  influence  in  the  direction  of  rigid 
Lutheranism.  He  took  part  in  the  composition  of  the  Torgau 
"  Epistolae,  pp.  175-6. 


THE   AUTHORS    OF    THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  451 

Book  in  1576,  as  we  have  already  learned,  and  was  present  at 
Bergen  in  ^lay,  1577.  when  the  Torgau  Book  was  transformed 
into  the  Bergic  Book.  On  almost  all  points  of  theology  Muscnlns 
Avent  to  extremes.  In  the  excess  of  his  antinomianism  he  called 
Moses  "a  hireling  (Bauernknecht),  who  forces  and  drives,  scolds 
and  lashes,  curses  and  execrates  the  ungodly. "  *  In  regard  to 
the  proposition  :  ' '  Good  works  are  necessary, ' '  he  broke  out  from 
the  pulpit:  "All  they  are  of  the  devil  who  teach  that  new 
obedience  is  necessary.  The  must  is  not  in  place  here.  You  say 
that  new  obedience  is  necessary,  but  not  to  salvation.  One  devil 
is  as  good  as  the  other.  Good  works  are  necessary  to  salvation — 
good  works  are  necessary,  but  not  to  salvation — these  are  two 
pairs  of  pantaloons  from  the  same  piece  of  cloth."  In  certain 
articles  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  written  in  the  year  1572  for  sub- 
scription by  the  ministers,  he  says :  ' '  There  is  no  place  in  which 
the  Son  of  God  is  according  to  the  divine  nature  where  the  Son 
of  man  is  not  according  to  the  human  nature. ' '  He  declares  that 
Christ,  from  the  moment  of  his  conception,  "is  subject  to  none 
of  the  necessary  conditions  of  physical  location ;  nor  is  he  shut  in 
by  any  local  boundaries,  nor  circumscribed  necessarily  by  the 
limitations  of  locality, ' '  f  which  is  ubiquitarianism  in  the  most 
unqualified  form. 

6.  Christopher  Koerner. 
Christopher  Koerner  was  born  at  Buchen,  in  Franconia,  in  the 
year  1518.  In  his  thirteenth  year  he  began  the  study  of  the  lan- 
guages and  of  theology  under  his  relative,  Conrad  Wimpina.  In 
the  year  1540  he  began  to  teach  in  the  University  of  Frankfort- 
on-the-Oder.  In  the  year  1564  he  was  made  ordinary  professor 
in  the  University,  and  in  1581  he  became  General  Superintendent 
of  Mark  Brandenburg.  He  died  March  18,  1594.  Because  of 
his  learning  he  was  called  "the  eye  of  the  University."  He  was 
at  the  Torgau  Convention  in  1576,  at  Bergen  in  May,- 1577,  at 
Tangermiinde,  March,  1578,  at  Schmalkald  in  October,  1578,  and 
at  Jiiterbogk  in  January,  1579.  He  was  a  true  Lutheran,  but 
was  by  no  means  so  passionate,  so  controversial,  so  one-sided, 
as  was  his  colleague,  IMuseulus.  In  1568  he  was  in  essential 
agreement  with  George  ]\Tajor  and  Vietorine  Strigel,  whom  he 
called  sound  teachers.  J 

*  G.  Frank,  GeschicMe  der  Trot.  Theologie,  I.,  149.     See  also  Dollinger, 
Die  Reformation,  III.,  527. 
t  Gieseler,  IV.,  464,  note  25. 
1  Sehiitz,  Vita  Bavidis  Chytraei,  II.,  436. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 


THE  CENSURES  OF  THE  TORGAU  BOOK. 


During  the  Summer  and  Autumn  of  the  year  1576,  numerous 
ecclesiastical  conventions  were  held  for  the  purpose  of  examining 
the  Torgau  Book.  The  official  conclusions  reached,  generally 
called  censures,  were  sent  to  the  Elector  of  Saxony.  The  majority 
of  them  reached  Dresden  by  the  first  of  February,  1577.  SoniP 
of  the  censures  approved  the  Torgau  Book  with  little  or  no 
qualification  whatever.  Some  objected  to  it  in  part,  and  offered 
suggestions  of  improvement;  some  rejected  the  Book  almost 
i7i  toto. 

A  collection  of  the  censures  has  not  been  published.  But 
quite  the  majority,  and  the  more  important  of  them,  are  found, 
either  in  full  text  or  in  substance,  or  in  large  extracts,  in  the 
histories  of  Hospinian,  Hutter,  Schiitz,  Anton,  Planck,  Heppe 
and  Gieseler;  and  to  these  sources  we  refer  those  who  are  in 
search  of  fuller  information  on  this  subject  than  can  be  given, 
in  this  history. 

1.     Holstein. 

Holstein,  in  the  Gottorp  and  Hadersleben  part,  maintained  in 
substance  as  follows:  1.  That  the  existing  normal  writings  are 
sufficient  for  the  decision  of  the  points  in  dispute.  2.  That  by 
a  new  symbolical  book  the  calumnies  of  the  opponents  would  be 
strengthened.  3.  That  by  the  same,  errors  which  had  vanished 
away  would  be  revived  to  confuse  men's  minds.  4.  That  in  it, 
too,  there  were  many  new  modes  of  statement  and  disputations, 
about  which  new  and  dangerous  divisions  would  spring  up.  Par- 
ticularly did  it  seem  "as  if  it  was  intended  by  this  work  to  put 
the  poor  Church  into  confusion  with  the  new  paradoxes  which 
vegetated  and  were  sent  forth  in  the  book  of  INIaster  Brentz,  De 
Majestate  Christi,"  1564.  The  Elector  was  advised  to  adhere  to 
(.  his  Corpus  Doctrinae,  but  to  exclude  from  it,  in  the  Loci  Com- 

L_^,  mimes,  "the  two  paragraphs  in  the  section  on  Free-will,  which 

were  not  there  in  the  life-time  of  holy  father  Luther,"  and  to 
add  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  the  Catechisms  of  Luther  and  Mel- 
anchthon's  Sententiae  Patrum  de  Coena  Domini.  They  say  that 
if  further  explanation  be  needed,  they  have  "the  other  books  of 

(452) 


THE    CENSURE.S    OF    THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  453 

Lntlier  and  of  his  faithful  helpers,  which  were  written  while 
Luther  was  living,  and  by  him  were  approved,  in  which  will  be 
found  the  clear  teaching  of  Luther  and  of  his  true  fellow-con- 
fessors of  the  Augsburg  Confession  while  Luther  lived,"  and 
they  close  with  the  earnest  admonition  "that  everything  which 
in  the  future  may  be  brought  into  controversy  shall  be  decided 
according  to  Holy  Scripture  and  the  writings  of  Luther."  In 
regard  to  the  other  part  of  Holstein,  Duke  John  the  Younger 
writes  to  the  Elector,  November  18,  1576,  that,  having  compared 
the  Torgau  Book  with  Holy  Scripture,  the  ancient  symbols, 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology  and  Luther's  Catechism, 
he  finds  them  all  in  full  accord,  and  he  declares  that  he  will 
persevere  in  this  faith  to  the  end  of  his  life,  and  will  earnestly 
hold  his  subjects  to  the  same.* 

2.  Wilrtemherg,  Baden  and  Hemieherg. 
The  theologians  of  these  three  principalities  declare,  Septem- 
ber 15,  1576,  that  they  find  the  pure  doctrine  in  each  and  every 
article  of  the  Torgau  Book,  and  that  every  article  is  in  harmony 
Avith  the  Maulbronn  Formula.  They  suggest  verbal  and  formal 
changes  in  numerous  places.  They  desire  that  the  article  on  the 
Will  be  better  guarded  against  misunderstanding.  They  say  that 
though  God  does  not  force  man  to  be  converted,  yet  he  draws 
the  man  whom  he  wishes  to  convert  in  such  a  Avay  that  his  dark- 
ened understanding  becomes  enlightened  and  his  refractory  Will 
becomes  obedient.  They  request  that  the  passages:  "The  will 
of  man  in  conversion  is  not  inactive,  but  does  something,"  and: 
"God  draws,  but  draws  him  who  is  willing,"  be  expunged,  since 
according  to  the  letter  they  are  not  correct,  and  attribute  too 
much  to  the  will.  They  also  ask  for  a  better  explanation  of  the 
word  spiritual  in  the  article  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  so  as  to  have 
it  mean  in  a  supernatural  and  heavenly  manner,  as  against  the 
Capernaites,  and  as  against  the  sacramentarian  use  of  the  word 
in  the  sense  of  union  with  Christ.  They  disapprove  the  designa- 
tion of  the  bread  and  wine  as  "instruments  by  which  Christ  im- 
parts his  body  and  blood." 

3.     Hesse. 

The  theologians  of  Hesse  issued  their  censure  at  Cassel,  Sep- 

*  For  Holstein  and  Schleswick,  see  Gieseler,  IV.,  p.  484;  Zeitschrift  fiir 
Histonsche  Theologie,  1850,  pp.  638  et  seqq.;  Heppe,  III.,  pp.  173  et  seqq. ; 
Hntter,  fol.  102.    Danische  Bibliolhel;  6  Bd.  pp.  3.S3  et  seqq. 


«t' 


454  THE    CENSURES    OF   THE    TORGAU    BOOK. 

tember  o,  1576.  It  disapproves  more  in  the  Torgau  Book  than  it 
approves.  It  objects  that  the  word  "unaltered"  has  been  pre- 
fixed to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that 
at  Naumburg,  in  1561,  the  Princes  had  approved  the  editions  of 
1540  and  1542  "as  amended,  enlarged  and  explained  from  the 
Holy  Scripture."  The  censure  objects  that  the  private  writings 
of  Luther  should  "be  cited  as  the  common  consent  of  the 
churches, ' '  inasmuch  as  such  writings  are  not  always  consistent ; 
nor  did  Luther  himself  lay  much  stress  on  them.  The  theologians 
feel  that  such  a  procedure  is  a  Babylonian  captivity.*  They  ob- 
ject to  the  exclusion  of  Melanchthon 's  writings,  especially  of  the 
Corpus  Doctrinae,  which  had  been  approved  in  Electoral  Saxony, 
as  also  in  Hesse,  and  which  had  been  useful  in  training  so  many 
persons  in  the  true  faith. 

The  theologians  approve  the  articles  on  Original  Sin,  Free-will, 
Justification,  Good  Works  and  The  Third  Use  of  the  Law,  as  in 
harmony  with  their  own  teaching.  In  discussing  the  article  on 
the  Lord's  Supper,  they  endorse  the  language  of  Melanchthon 
and  approve  the  Wittenberg  Concord  of  1536,  and  disapprove 
the  use  of  "the  vehement  and  harsh  word  condemn,"  as  applied 
to  those  who  oppose  the  Lutheran  doctrine.  They  approve  the 
article  on  the  Person  of  Christ  as  essentially  correct,  and  under- 
stand that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  omnipotent  and  omnis- 
cient, not  per  s^  or  ex  se,  but  on  account  of  the  divine  nature, 
with  which  it  is  inseparably  united.  They  raise  no  objection  to 
the  article  on  the  Descensus  ad  Inferos.  Tliey  approve  the 
articles  on  Adiaphora  and  Predestination — to  all  of  which  must 
be  added  the  letter  of  the  Landgraves  William  and  Ludwig  to 
the  Elector,  in  which,  under  date  of  September  10,  1576,  they 
present  numerous  objections  to  the  Torgau  Book.f 

4.     Neuherg,  Simmern  and  Ziveihrucken. 

At  first  the  clergy  of  Neuberg  were  not  disposed  to  subscribe 

the  Torgau  Book  as  a  confession  of  their  faith,  on  account  of  its 

ubiquitarianism.    But  August  8,  1576,  they  declared  themselves 

willing  to  accept  it  with  heart,  and  mouth,  and  hand,  provided 

antitheses  be  added  to  the  ninth  and  eleventh  articles,  and  that 

the  article  on  The  Descensus  be  either  more  accurately  defined 

(^r  be  expunged.J 

*  Heppe,  III.,  pp.  349  et  seqq. 

t  Hospinian,  fols.  6.5  et  seqq.,  69  et  seqq.;  Heppe,  Conf essionelle  Entw. 
der  Hessi'schen  Kirclie  (18.53),  p.  10;  Gieseler,  IV.,  p.  484,  note  11. 
t  Heppe,  III.,  p.  168. 


THE    CENSURES    OF    THE    TOKGAU    BOOK.  455 

The  theologians  of  Simmern  thought  that  the  authors  of  the 
Torgau  Book  should  show  more  appreciation  of  the  authority  of 
Melanchthon  and  of  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum.  Never- 
theless, the  Palsgrave,  in  sending  the  censure  of  his  theologians 
to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  January  8,  1577,  promised  to  do  all  in 
his  power  to  advance  the  work  of  concord.* 

The  theologians  of  Zweibriicken  declare,  September  13,  1576, 
that  they  find  the  Torgau  Book  in  complete  harmony  with  the 
Scriptures  and  with  the  confessions  of  the  Church,  and  say  that 
they  are  ready  to  subscribe  all  the  articles  with  mouth  and  hand. 
But  they  object  to  subscribing  Luther's  doctrinal  and  polemical 
writings,  and  in  this  way  establishing  a  human  authority,  since 
Luther's  writings  should  not  be  used  for  proving,  but  for  illus- 
trating. ,  They  desire  that  the  many  patristic  quotations  found 
in  the  book  should  be  eliminated.  They  desiderate  some  things 
in  the  articles  on  the  Lord's  Supper  and  the  Person  of  Christ. 
They  express  the  wish  that  the  article  on  the  Descensus  should  be 
either  omitted  or  improved  in  the  explanation.  In  the  article  on 
Predestination  they  miss  the  antithesis. 

These  suggestions  are  commended  to  the  favorable  considera- 
tion of  the  authors  of  the  Torgau  Book,  with  the  promise  of  sub- 
mission to  their  authority. t 

5.     Pomerania. 

The  Synod  of  Pomerania  met  at  Wolgast,  January  22.  1577. 
The  theologians  declare  that,  inasmuch  as  the  Torgau  Book  is 
intended  to  supplant  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum,  they  feel 
compelled  to  witness  that  ]\Ielanchthon's  public  writings  contain 
nothing  contrary  to  the  orthodox  doctrine ;  that  ]\Ielanchthon  had 
always  maintained  the  true  and  essential  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  had  taught  that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  an 
act  in  which  with  the  bread  and  wine  Christ  gives  his  body  and 
blood.  They  are  confident  that  Melanchthon 's  doctrine  of  Free- 
will, as  set  forth  in  the  Latin  Loci,  can  be  vindicated  as  orthodox. 
Hence  they  had  retained  the  said  Corpus  in  their  schools,  and 
had  admonished  all  their  preachers  to  study  it  with  diligence. 
INIelanchthon 's  definition  of  the  Gospel  as  the  preaching  of  re- 
pentance they  declared  to  be  truly  Christian,  genuinely  scrip- 
tural and  soundly  Lutheran.  His  doctrine  of  .justification  is 
also  perfectly  orthodox,  since  he  teaches  that  justification  must 
always  be   joined  with   repentance   and   new   ol)edience.      They 

*  Heppe.  ut  suina.  "t  Heppe,  tit  .s(»/)/«.    H;)spini:iii.  fol.  7(i. 


456  THE    (ENSURES    OF    THE    TOHtiAU    BOOK. 

recommend  that,  since  the  Corpus  Doctrlnae  Philippicum  is  in 
harmony  with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  all  the  Estates,  the  teachers 
and  the  preachers  and  the  people  shall  steadfastly  maintain  this 
form  of  doctrine  and  transmit  it  to  posterity.  They  declare  that 
"it  has  disturbed  and  troubled  them  that  only  the  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession  is  ever  and  anon  spoken  of,  and  that  such 
unjust  judgments  and  condenmation  have  been  permitted  against 
the  authority  of  the  corrected  and  altered  edition.  They  desire 
that  the  Confessio  Saxonica  shall  be  retained.  In  ^icneral  they 
would  not  oppose  the  Torgau  Book  should  it  be  brought  into  their 
country,  provided  it  be  received  in  connection  with  their  own 
Corpus  Docfrinae."  * 

6.     AnhaJt. 

The  theologians  of  Anhalt  were  ardently  attached  to  Melanch- 
thon  and  were  opposed  to  the  ultra-Lutheran  orthodoxy  which 
had  been  developed  in  parts  of  Saxony.  It  was  but  natural  that 
they  should  express  themselves  against  the  Torgau  Book.  They 
object  to  the  prolixity  of  the  book,  and  object  that  in  a  formula 
which  is  meant  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  so  much 
should  be  said  against  the  ancient  and  modern  heretics,  "for, 
what  have  we  to  do  with  those  who  are  without  1 ' ' 

' '  Besides,  it  is  to  us  especially  painful  that  in  this  book  the  old 
love  and  fidelity  which  are  forever  due  to  the  dear  departed 
Philip  ]\Ielanchthon  is  entirely  forgotten ;  that  his  views  should 
be  ignored,  and  that  in  this  book  not  one  word  should  be  said 
about  his  faithful  work  and  glorious  name.  Hence  it  is  a  matter 
of  solicitude  that  the  authors  of  the  Torgau  Book  shall  not  expose 
themselves  to  the  suspicion  of  having  wished  'to  separate  from 
each  other  the  tAvo  faithful  heroes,  Luther  and  Philip,  who  in 
these  last  times  have  been  raised  up  together  by  the  grace  of 
God  for  the  salvation  and  honor  of  the  Church — and  who  have 
brought  us  all  to  victory — canonizing  the  one  and  making  the 
other  a  stench,  and  seeking  their  own  honor  through  the  downfall 
of  this  one.'  The  theologians  of  Electoral  Saxony  should  not 
make  such  a  mistake,  'especially  since  the  most  distinguished 
among  them  at  Wittenberg,  Rostock,  Tiibingen  and  elsewhere, 
both  publicly  and  privately,  not  without  high  praise  and  profit, 
have  lectured  to  us  and  others  on  Philip's  Loci  Communes;  and 
they  have  presented  Philip's  Examen,  on  which  so  many  thous- 
ands have  prepared  themselves  for  their  examinations,  and  on 
which  they  themselves  were  instructed  and  ordained.'  They 
*  Planck,  VI.,  496  et  seqq.;  Heppe,  III.,  146  et  seqq. 


THE    CENSURES    OF    THE    TOKGAU    BOOK.  457 

cannot  believe  that  it  is  the  purpose  to  exclude  Melauchthon's 
books  from  the  churches  and  schools,  'since  many,  a  time,  by 
a  single  definition,  he  has  brought  more  light  into  the  school  than 
at  present  it  is  possible  for  us  all  to  do  with  our  books — should 
this  be  done,  then  we  have  before  us  a  new  danger  which  no  one 
can  resist.    A  wide-spread  barbarism  will  follow.'  " 

The  censure  expresses  essential  agreement  with  the  Torgau 
Book  on  the  doctrine  of  Sin.  but  prefers  Melanchthon 's  brevity 
of  statement  to  the  prolixity  of  the  Torgau  Book.  It  objects  de- 
cidedly to  the  doctrine  of  Free-will  as  set  forth  in  the  book,  and 
defends  Melanchthon 's  use  of  the  three  causes.  It  declares  that 
the  proposition  :  ' '  ]\Ian  is  converted  while  resisting, "  is  a  buskin, 
and  says  that  the  expression,  ' '  passive  capacity, ' '  is  unusual.  It 
expresses  itself  in  favor  of  the  Melanchthonian  teaching  on  the 
doctrine  of  justification,  and  says  that  in  the  Lord's  Supper  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  imparted  to  the  worthy  and  to  the 
unworth.y,  to  the  former  for  the  confirmation  of  their  faith,  to 
the  latter  unto  condemnation.* 

To  this  censure  must  be  added  the  declaration  of  the  Anhalt 
theologians  On  the  Person,  Majesty  and  Office  of  Christ,  in  sixty 
brief  propositions,  in  which  they  affirm  an  anti-Swabian  Chris- 
tology,  but  maintain  a  real  hypostatic  union  of  the  two  natures 
of  Christ,  and  declare  that  "the  assumed  human  nature  co- 
operates not  only  meritoriously,  but  also  by  the  efficacy  of  the 
Logos  in  all  things  which  pertain  to  the  office  of  the  Saviour." 
The  presence  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Supper  of  the  Lord 
they  "believe  on  account  of  the  words  of  the  institution."  f 

7.  A)ishac]i. 
Andreae  had  commended  the  Torgau  Book  to  the  theologians 
of  Ansbach  and  had  solicited  their  subscription  to  the  same,  even 
before  it  had  been  sent  to  them.  Later,  when  they  had  received 
a  copy  and  had  examined  it,  September  3,  1576,  they  rejected 
the  formula  with  emphasis.!  The  next  Spring.  April  19.  1577, 
the  theologians  of  Nlirnberg  declared  that  "they  stand  by  the 
old  Confession  of  the  city,  and  had  warned  the  town  coun- 
cil to  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  controversies  and  differ- 
ences of  other  churches,  as  they  were  unnecessary  and  dangerous, 
nor  should  they  disturb  the  churches  of  the  city  with  them,  or 

*  Semler,  pp.  33-37;  Planck.  IV.,  507  et  seqq.;  Heppe,  pp.  177  et  seqq. 
t  Given  by  Heppe,  III..  386  et  seqq. 
S  Heppe,  III.,  188,  189. 


458  •       THE    CENSURES    OF    THE    TORGAU    BOOK. 

create  a  troublesome  faction,  as  has  been  already  done  by  cor- 
respondence with  foreign  theologians. ' '  * 

8.  Magdeburg. 

The  theologians  of  Magdeburg  delivered  their  censure  to  the 
Administrator  December  21,  1576.  The  censure  concedes  in 
general  that  the  Torgau  Book  contains  much  that  is  good,  but  it 
declares  that  some  parts  of  it  are  contrary  to  the  truth.  "They 
wish,  by  all  means,  that  the  writings  of  Melanchthon,  which  had 
been  hitherto  received  and  subscribed  in  so  many  electorates  and 
principalities,  had  been  allowed  to  remain."  They  enter  espe- 
cially on  a  defense  of  Melanchthon 's  Loci  and  of  the  changes 
made  in  the  later  editions  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  "This 
last,"  they  say,  "was  by  no  means  undertaken  by  him  without 
consideration ;  but  by  the  command  of  Electors  and  Princes,  and 
with  the  foreknowledge,  approval,  counsel  and  assistance  of 
Luther  and  other  distinguished  theologians  in  these  lands,  he 
revised  the  Confession,  which  did  not  remain  in  the  new  edition 
as  a  private  writing ;  but,  just  like  the  first,  it  was  subscribed  and 
approved  by  the  Protestant  Estates.  The  improvements  which  it 
contains  can  as  little  be  suspected  as  those  which  Luther  from 
time  to  time  introduced  into  his  German  translation  of  the  Bible. 
No  one  ever  regarded  them  as  corruptions."  As  regards  Mel- 
anchthon's  Loci,  they  (the  theologians)  do  not  hesitate  to  avow 
that  from  this  book,  next  to  the  Bible,  they  have  learned  all  their 
theology,  and  have  drawn  mainly  from  it ;  all  the  time  they  have 
been  in  office  they  have  instructed  other  people  in  church  and 
school  from  it. 

But  finally  they  concede  that  they  have  not  found  in  the  Loci 
a  theology  that  differs  from  that  contained  in  the  Torgau  Book. 
"Hence,  in  regard  to  doctrine  they  (the  theologians)  are  one 
in  every  respect,  and  they  only  wish  that,  in  method,  some 
things  be  changed,  and  especially  that  all  personalities  shall  be 
omitted. ' '  f 

9.  Brunswick. 

The  theologians  of  the  Duchy  met  at  Riddagshausen.  August 
9,  1576,  for  the  purpose  of  passing  judgment  on  the  Torgau  Book. 
Their  censure,  which  in  all  probability  was  written  by  Chemnitz, 
takes  up  the  Torgau  Book,  article  by  article,  and  approves  all  the 
articles  without  qualification,  though  with  an  occasional  sugges- 

*  Pressel  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Historische  Theoloc/ie,  1867.  p.  28. 
t  Semler.  pp.  ;^1.  32;   Planck.  YI.,  .t19. 


THE    CENSURES    OF    THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  459 

tion,  and  with  the  recommendation  that  a  general  synod  shall  be 
held,  and  that  the  following  points  shall  be  considered : 

1.  That  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum  be  no  longer  held 
as  a  norm  of  faith.  2.  That  the  Calvinistic  books  which  had  made 
their  appearance  in  Electoral  Saxony  should  be  rejected.  3.  That 
all  books  which  are  inconsistent  wath  or  contrary  to  the  proposed 
formula  of  confession  be  condemned  and  rejected.  4.  That  the 
proposed  formula  of  confession  shall  be  preached  and  taught  in 
all  the  schools  and  churches;  nor  shall  anyone  be  allowed  to 
defend  or  countenance  the  errors  which  it  condemns.  5.  That 
a  formula  of  subscription  be  devised,  "so  that  everyone  in  his 
subscription  must  confess  that  with  heart,  mouth  and  pen,  in 
thesis  and  in  antithesis,  he  approves  this  formula  of  confession 
throughout."  6.  That  everyone  is  to  condone  and  forget  the 
private  injuries  that  he  may  have  suffered  in  this  long  period  of 
controversy.  7.  That  the  press  is  to  be  guarded,  so  that  no  one 
shall  print  his  opinions  as  he  may  choose ;  also  theological  writ- 
ings shall  be  subjected  to  examination  and  approval  by  learned 
and  unsuspected  persons,  with  reference  to  their  agreement  with 
the  formula  of  confession,  before  they  shall  be  printed.  8.  That 
churches  and  schools  shall  be  ofificially  visited  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  whether  the  teaching  is  in  harmony  with  the  formula 
of  confession,  both  in  thesis  and  in  antithesis.  Those  who  teach 
and  persist  in  defending  opposing  views  are  to  be  put  out  of 
office.* 

10.  MecTxleiiburg. 

The  censure  of  the  theologians  of  Rostock  and  ^lecklenburg 
was  delivered  to  the  Duke  of  IMecklenburg  at  Rostock,  October 
16,  1576.  They  say  that  "the  entire  statement  made  at  Torgau, 
as  regards  the  explanation  of  the  true  doctrine;  the  rejection  of 
errors,  and  the  treatment  of  the  whole  controversy  about  religion, 
is  approved  throughout  in  all  the  articles ;  and  we  heartily  desire 
that  it  may  serve  well  and  happily  for  a  true  and  permanent 
unity  of  the  churches  which  subscribe  to  the  Christian  Augsburg 
Confession. ' '  They  make  a  few  unimportant  suggestions,  which 
they  think  would  contribute  to  perspicuity  and  to  the  avoidance 
of  errors  in  the  future. t 

11.  Brandenhurg. 

The  Elector  John  George  first  instructed  his  counsellors  as  to 

""  Hutter,  III.,  et  seqq. ;  Planck.  YI.,  4.59  et  seqq. 

t  See  the  entire  Censure  in  Schiitz.  Vita  Chytmei.  II..  Appendix,  pp.  4S 
et  seqq. 


460  THE    CENSURES    OF   THE    TOKGAU    BOOK. 

the  way  in  which  they  shoukl  exainine  the  Torgau  Book.  Then 
he  called  a  convention  of  his  chief  clergy,  including  the  Court 
Preacher  Coelestin,  and  of  his  principal  professors,  including 
Musculus  and  Koerner,  to  meet  at  Lebus.  August  4,  1576,  the 
assembled  theologians  report  that  they  have  examined  the  Torgau 
Book  in  all  its  parts  "with  special  diligence,  according  to  the  rule 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  teaching  of  Luther,  and  have  found 
that  in  this  book  all  the  subjects  have  been  treated  and  in  a 
Christian  manner. ' '  Hence,  aside  from  a  few  insignificant  points, 
they  are  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  entire  treatment  of  the  book, 
and  are  heartily  thankful  to  the  Holy  Trinity  for  the  truth  here 
set  forth.  They  desire  that  to  the  articles  on  Original  Sin,  Free- 
will, the  Difference  between  the  Law  and  the  Gospel,  and  the 
Third  Use  of  the  Law,  quotations  should  be  added  from  the 
writings  of  Luther. 

But  it  is  evident  that  this  censure  represented  chiefly,  if  not 
entirely,  the  sentiment  of  the  clergy  assembled  at  Lebus  and  that 
of  John  George:  for  the  next  year  the  majority  of  the  ministers 
of  Brandenburg  expressed  themselves  in  decided  opposition  to 
the  censure,  and  declared  their  dissatisfaction  Avith  the  exclusion 
of  Melanchthon  and  his  writings,  and  with  the  introduction  of 
a  new  system  of  doctrine.* 

1*2.  The  Cities  of  Lower  Saxony. 
The  churches  of  Goslar,  Brunswick,  Hildesheim,  Gottingen, 
Hanover,  Nordheim,  Hameln,  Eimbeck  and  Hoxter  delivered 
their  censure  at  a  synod  held  in  Brunswick,  November  14,  1576. 
They  declare  that  the  Torgau  Book  agrees  almost  word  for  word 
with  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia,  which  they  had  approved 
the  previous  year.  The  additions  have  been  taken  from  the  writ- 
ings of  Luther.  The  theologians  declare  that  they  teach  in  their 
churches,  both  in  thesis  and  in  antithesis,  the  doctrine  that  is  in- 
culcated in  this  formula.  This  same  doctrine  they  will  maintain, 
in  their  ministry-  and  before  the  civil  authorities,  in  church  and 
in  school,  and  they  "will  uphold  it,  not  only  before  the  living, 
but  will  bequeath  it  as  a  deposit  to  posterity.  Hitherto  in  our 
ministry  we  have  opposed  with  voice  and  pen  the  corruptions, 
and,  God  knows,  we  have  done  it  with  no  end  in  view  except 
that  everything  which  is  contrary  to  sound  doctrine,  everything 
AA'hich  for  years  has  been  creeping  in,  and  is  contrary  to  the 
canon  of  the  divine  Word  and  to  the  old  Lutheran  Corpus  Doc- 
*  Semler,  pp.   8-10,   20,   21;    Heppe,  III.,   p.   135. 


THE    CENSURES    OF   THE    TOKGAU    ROOK.  461 

frinae  and  to  this  formula,  may  be  clearly  and  expressly  east 
out  and  rejected,  and  that  the  churches  may  be  warned."  * 

They  make  insignificant  suggestions  for  the  improvement  of 
the  articles.  For  instance,  in  the  article  On  Predestination  they 
declare  that  in  that  part  of  the  country  the  doctrine  of  predesti- 
nation has  been  violently  discussed,  "the  one  party  saying  pre- 
destination is  universal,  or  is  to  be  understood  universaliter;  the 
other  party  contends  that  it  is  particular,  or  that  it  is  to  be 
understood  particulariter,  and  everyone  explains  his  view  as  he 
wishes.  Therefore  we  pray  that  a  declaration  in  the  formula 
may  be  attached  to  the  phrases,  so  that  such  disputes  may  be 
repressed  by  public  authority."* 

They  express  themselves  as  unwilling  that  Melanchthon 's  writ-  ,   jV 

ings  should  be  w^hoUy  rejected.  But  they  are  not  willing  that 
they  shall  be  regarded  as  normative.  "His  doctrine  of  Free-, 
will,  of  the  definition  of  the  Gospel,  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  etc., 
are  debatable,  and  are  not  entirely  in  harmony  with  the  waitings 
of  Luther."  They  should  be  subjected  to  the  writings  of  Luther. 
They  pray  that  in  a  preface,  or  at  the  end  of  the  proposed  form- 
ula, a  statement  should  be  made  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  books 
of  Melanchthon  and  Dr.  ^lajor  should  be  read.  They  ask  that 
the  books  of  Flacius,  Spangenberg,  Irenaeus,  Strigel,  Stossel,  c^C^^  U 
Calvin,  Beza,  Bullinger,  ]\Iartyr,  and  those  condemned  at  Lich-  <"'  ' 
tenberg  and  Torgau,  be  mentioned  by  name  in  a  preface  or  in  an 
appendix  to  the  formula.  Also  they  ask  that  a  general  clause 
shall  be  added  in  regard  to  certain  books  issued  by  the  Witten- 
berg and  Leipzig  professors,  and  that  'a  censorship  be  erected 
over  the  press  to  see  that  no  book  is  published,  "under  any  pre- 
text," which  is  opposed  to  "the  aforesaid  formula,"  that  is, 
to  the  Torgau  Book.  "So,  indeed,  must  the  young  and  those  who 
protest  know  quod  fuerit  judicium  ecclesiae  horum  temporum  de 
hujusmodi  scriptis. ' '  f 

13.     Liibeck,  Hamburg  and  Lilnehurg. 

In  a  convention  held  at  Moln,  October  30th  to  November  2d, 
"the  theologians  of  the  three  cities  named  above  express  anew 
their  approval  of  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia  and  declare  at     " 
the  same  time,  in  reference  to  the  Torgau  Book,  that  in  the  same 
the  earlier  formula  is  'in  some  parts  impi'oved.  and  without  any 

"  Ti'anslation  slightly  condensed. 

t  This  censure  is  given  in  full  text  by  Rehtmeyer,  III.,  Beylageu,  pp.  261 
et  seqq.     See  Hutter,  fol.  1J3?}. 


462  THE  CEXSURES  OF  THE  TOKGAU  BOOK. 

change  of  substance,  enlarged  by  necessary  explanations.'  But 
by  means  of  this  explanation  they  did  not  mean  to  abolish  the 
older  confessions  or  to  effect  a  political  confederation.  Much 
rather  is  this  to  be  only  a  public  testimony  of  the  doctrine  which 
has  been  confessed  in  these  churches  'from  the  beginning  of  the 
reformed  religion.' 

"The  desideria  expressed  in  regard  to  the  Torgau  Book  have 
reference  to  things  almost  entirely  unessential.  In  general,  there 
is  a  demand  for  a  sharper  expression  of  the  exclusive  Lutheran 
character  of  the  formula  and  for  a  more  decided  separation  of 
the  Confession,  as  over  against  the  Calvinistic  and  Melanchthon- 
ian  peculiarity.  The  convention  also  cites  and  rejects  the  Phil- 
ippistic  and  Flacianist  books  which  had  appeared  in  Electoral 
Saxony  (to  which  they  wished  to  have  added  expressly  Melanch- 
thon  's  opinion  on  the  Heidelberg  sacramental  affair  and  the  books 
of  Flacius,  Irenaeus  and  Spangenberg  on  original  sin).  The  cen- 
sorship of  the  press,  the  establishment  of  a  definite  formula  of 
subscription,  the  removal  of  erroneous  teachers,  and  the  like,  cov- 
ering the  same  propositions  which  the  Riddagshausen  Convention 
had  suggested,  should  be  laid  before  the  next  General  Synod. ' '  * 

14.     Prussia. 

Margrave  George  Frederick  of  Brandenburg-Ansbach  was  at 
this  time  administrator  of  the  Duchy  of  Prussia.  Tilemann  Hes- 
huss,  as  we  have  already  learned,  was  Bishop  of  Sammland.  He 
had  the  Torgau  Book  copied  and  sent  to  the  pastors  and  to  Dr. 
Wigand  for  examination.  His  private  opinion  of  the  Torgau 
Book  we  read  on  p.  430  et  seqq. 

The  Administrator  ordered  Heshuss  and  Wigand  each  to  ren- 
der an  opinion  on  the  Torgau  Book.  December  17,  1576,  at  a 
conference  held  in  Konigsberg,  the  two  opinions  were  examined. 
Heshuss  was  instructed  to  make  one  censure  out  of  the  two 
opinions,  and  to  have  regard  to  the  observations  made  by  the 
members  of  the  conference.  The  censure  was  then  signed  by  the 
two  Bishops,  Heshuss  and  Wigand,  and  by  six  other  clergj^men. 
The  censure  pronounces  the  Torgau  Book  in  general  "a  glorious 
and  excellent  book. ' '  It  sets  forth  that  the  divisive  and  ruinous 
religious  controversies  have  been  completely  and  thoroughly  dis- 
cussed, explained  and  stated,  and  that  in  all  the  twelve  articles, 
in  so  far  as  the  chief  thing  is  concerned,  the  doctrine  is  presented 
well  and  properly,  in  harmony  with  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
*Heppe,  III.,  131-2. 


THE    CENSURES    OF   THE    TOKGAU    BOOK.  463 

Augsburg  Confession,  and  that  the  opposing  doctrine  is  rightly 
rejected,  and  is  confuted  with  good  reasons  from  the  prophetic 
and  apostolic  Scriptures.  The  theologians  declare  that  had  the 
Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  theologians  taught,  after  Luther 's  death, 
as  it  is  taught  in  this  book,  they  would  never  have  written  a  line 
against  them.  They  rejoice  that  the  Elector  of  Saxony  has  re- 
jected the  polemical  writings  published  against  the  teaching  of 
Luther,  and  that  he  has  now  become  the  patron  and  promoter 
of  Luther's  doctrine.  They  approve  the  use  of  "the  unal- 
tered Augsburg  Confession  which  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor 
Charles  V.  anno  1530." 

In  regard  to  Jacob  Audreae  they  have  this  to  say:  "Inas- 
much as  Dr.  Jacob  Andreae  has  sinned  grievously  against  God 
and  has  greatly  scandalized  the  entire  Church  of  God.  in  that  he 
has  tried  to  reconcile  the  views  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  as  at  Wei- 
mar, in  regard  to  the  Confutation  of  the  Dul'cs  of  Saxony  and 
The  Declaration  of  Tictorine  (Strigel)  [see  p.  361  et  seqq.], 
which  are  directly  contrary  the  one  to  the  other,  in  consequence 
of  which  innocent  teachers  were  cruelly  slandered  and  perse- 
cuted, as  his  book  sent  to  the  Roman  Emperor  in  anno  1570 
shows,  therefore  the  Word  of  God  requires  of  him  that  he  pub- 
licly confess  such  dreadful  sin,  beg  the  pardon  of  the  Church, 
and  do  heartily  repent.  But  until  this  shall  have  been  done  it 
is  a.  very  dangerous  thing  for  pious  and  God-fearing  people  to 
subscribe  a  confession  with  him  in  such  a  way  as  not  to  make 
themselves  partakers  of  another  man's  sins  and  as  not  to 
strengthen  Dr.  Jacob  in  his  impenitence.  But  if  Dr.  Jacob  will 
acknowledge  his  fall  and  will  truly  repent,  then  they  should  be 
ready  as  Christians  to  forgive  and  to  forget  all  injuries  that  have 
been  inflicted,  and  to  receive  him  as  a  brother  and  a  fellow-serv- 
ant of  Jesus  Christ. ' ' 

In  their  censure  of  the  article,  Of  Supposed  Free-will,  these 
Prussian  theologians  demand,  among  other  things,  the  following: 

1.  That  the  paragraph  in  which  the  Torgau  Book  treats  the 
passage.  Gal.  3:24:  "The  law  is  our  schoolmaster."  etc.,  in  a 
]\Ielanchthonian  sense,  be  supplanted  by  Luther's  explanation  of 
the  same  passage.  2.  That  the  comparison  by  which  the  Torgau 
Book  likens  the  natural  mind  and  will  of  man  to  our  eyes,  which 
see  the  earth,  but  cannot  behold  the  bright  sun,  be  dropped,  be- 
cause it  is  too  weak,  since  the  natural  understanding  is  stark 
blind  and  dead  to  good.  3.  That  the  declaration  that  the  question, 
whether  man.  before,  in.  and  after  conversion,  resists  the  Holy 


464  THE    CENSURES    OF    THE    TORGAU    BOOK. 

Spirit,  is  only  a  scholastic  dispute,  be  not  so  understood,  ''for 
Luther  was  not  a  scholastic  disputer  when  he  earnestly  and  justly 
contended  for  the  pure  passive."  4.  That  the  declaration  of 
Melanchthon,  Hominis  voluntas  in  conversione  non  est  otiosa 
(which  in  the  Torgau  Book  is  explained  in  the  Melanchthonian 
sense),  be  supplanted  by  these  words:  "Most  correctly  does 
Luther  contend  that  man  in  conversion  is  absolutely  passive." 

5.  That  the  "three  concurring  causes,"  which  in  the  Torgau  Book 
had  received  a  somewhat  iMelanchthonian  explanation,  be  re- 
jected as  dangerous  and  false,  and  as  favorable  to  the  Synergists. 

6.  That  the  oft-quoted  dictum  of  Chrysostom :  ' '  God  draws,  but 
draws  him  who  is  willing,"  be  rejected  as  false  and  Pelagianiz- 
ing:  and  they  close  this  part  of  their  censure  by  saying  that 
Melanchthon 's  teaching  on  Free-will,  as  contained  in  the  Loci  and 
in  the  Examen  Ordinandorvm,  and  in  his  other  writings,  and  in 
the  teaching  of  Strigel  and  others  on  the  same  subject  and  the 
"three  efficient  causes,"  are  rejected  by  them,  "because  they  are 
contrary  to  the  Word  of  God." 

In  the  articles,  On  Good  ^Vorks,  the  Laiv  and  the  Gospel,  and 
the  Third  Use  of  the  Law,  they  find  that  the  opposition  to  ]\[el- 
anehthon  has  not  been  made  sufficiently  definite.  They  deem  it 
highly  important  that  Melanchthon 's  letter  to  the  Elector  of 
the  Palatinate,  and  his  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  set 
forth  in  his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians,  should 
be  named  and  rejected,  and  that  the  authors  and  patrons  of  cor- 
ruptions should  be  named  and  condemned,  in  order  that  the 
people  may  be  guarded  against  them.  "In  regard  to  Philip 
nothing  is  to  be  done!  He  now  has  his  doom  (Gericht),  and 
we  would  hope  that  he  has  repented,  and  that  God  has  in  Christ 
forgiven  him  his  sins  and  errors.  We  must  act  with  reference 
to  the  poor  youth  and  the  plain  people,  and  especially  with 
reference  to  posterity,  so  that  they  cannot  be  led  into  such  errors 
by  the  writings  of  Philip,  but  can  read  them  with  prudence 
and  warning.  We  are  heartily  certain  that,  should  the  names 
of  the  authors  and  patrons  of  corruptions  be  passed  over  in 
silence  in  this  Formula  of  Concord,  then  it  will  go  forth  as  a 
piece  of  jugglery  and  not  from  the  heart.  The  Concordia  will 
not  last  long,  for  Ezekiel  will  cry  at  the  window  :  '  The  prophets 
have  daubed  them  with  untempered  mortar.'  The  rain  will 
quickly  remove  such  daubing.  He  who  does  not  reject  false 
i^'*'^*  j  doctrines  with  names,  does  not  act  from  the  heart.  He  may 
print  and  subscribe  until  the  storm  be  past.    As  soon  as  another 


THE    CENSURES    OF   THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  465 

wind  blows  he  will  sing  his  old  song :  He  never  rejected  the  view 
of  Philip."* 

Of  all  the  censures  of  the  Torgau  Book,  this,  which  was  sent 
to  Dresden  in  the  name  of  the  Prussian  Lutheran  Church,  is  the 
most  outspokenly  anti-Melanchthonian.  It  not  only  condemns 
the  writings  of  ]\Ielanchthon,  but  it  also  catalogues  their  author 
with  the  false  teachers  in  the  Church,  and  seeks  to  blot  out  his 
name  from  the  Church  which  he  helped  to  bring  into  existence, 
and  which  he  served  with  a  wealth  of  learning,  an  ardor  of  zeal, 
and  a  sincerity  of  purpose,  such  as  have  not  been  surpassed  in  all 
the  annals  of  Christianity.  He,  who  had  been  Luther's  faithful 
friend  and  co-worker,  and  whom  Luther  loved  and  trusted  as 
he  loved  and  trusted  no  other  man,  is  henceforth  to  be  known 
and  remembered  as  a  heretic !  His  name  is  to  stand  as  a  monu- 
ment of  dishonor  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  which  was  devised 
for  the  purpose  of  uniting  all  the  adherents  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  Luther — chiefly  the  Luther  of  controversy— is  not 
only  placed  at  the  head — as  is  eminently  proper  and  right  that 
he  should  be — but  he  is  to  be  made,  and  is  to  be  recognized  as, 
the  sole  criterion  for  Lutheranism.  Such  had  been  the  con- 
tention of  the  Flacianists.  The  authors  of  the  Torgau  Book,  in 
the  face  of  their  own  antecedents,  had  in  large  measure  yielded 
to  this  contention.  Hence  Heshuss  and  Wigand,  the  only  re- 
maining Flacianists  of  influence,  could  agree  with  the  Torgau 
Book  in  essentials,  and  with  confidence  they  could  demand 
further  concessions  in  the  direction  of  their  own  one-sided  and 
exclusive  Lutheranism.  The  demands  made  by  the  Prussian 
censure  were,  in  their  essential  features,  conceded  in  the  trans- 
formation of  the  Torgau  Book  in  the  Bergic  Book.  The  article 
on  Free-will  w^as  made  decidedly  Flacianistic.f  Melanchthon 's 
writings  are  not,  indeed,  condemned,  neither  is  Melanchthon 
catalogued  as  a  heretic.  But  both  himself  and  his  writings  are 
passed  by  in  silence.  Hence,  all  things  considered,  it  can  be 
truthfully  said  that  the  Prussian  censure  imparted  the  character 
of  Lutherism,  rather  than  that  of  Lutheranism,  to  the  work  of 

*  The  Prussian  Censure  has  not  been  printed  in  full.  It  is  found  in  the 
Kgl.  Staatarchiv  zu  Konigsberg,  Pr.  Briefarchiv,  J.  2.  It  is  dated  January 
S,  1577.  The  present  writer  possesses  a  certified  copy  of  the  original,  made 
at  his  request  and  cost  in  1905.  Some  parts  of  the  original  have  become 
illegible.  It  is  indispensable  for  understanding  the  history  of  the  Bergic 
Book.  See  brief  summary  in  Hutter,  fols.  249,  250 ;  an<l  a  much  more  com- 
plete summary  by  Heppe,  III.,  137  et  seqq. 

t  See  Thomasius,  Das  Belennfniss,  p.  144;  Luthardt.  Die  Lelive  vom 
Freien  Willen.  p.  272;   G.  Frank,  Herzog,-  XV,  p.  111. 

30 


466  THE  CENSURES  OF  THE  TOKGAU  BOOK. 

Concord.  In  so  far  as  it  approved  the  Torgaii  Book,  it,  no  doubt, 
surpassed  the  expectations  of  Chemnitz,  Andreae  and  Selneccer. 
The  natural  effect  of  such  approval  would  be  to  create  in  the 
authors  of  the  book  a  readiness  to  comply  with  further  requisi- 
tions, since  the  success  of  the  work  of  Concord  now  depended 
mainly,  if  not  entirely,  on  the  final  attitude  of  the  Prussians. 

And  now,  if  we  analyze  the  censures,  of  which  there  are  said 
to  have  been  twenty-five,*  the  more  important  of  which  we  have 
exhibited  in  substance,  we  at  once  discover  that  they  greatly 
differ  in  character  and  value,  as  was  stated  at  the  beginning  of 
this  chapter.  That  representing  the  larger  part  of  Holstein  is 
decidedly  unfavorable.  The  same  is  true,  though  to  a  smaller 
extent,  with  the  censures  of  principalities  in  the  Palatinate,  of 
Anhalt,  Hesse,  Pomerania  and  Magdeburg.  In  some  cases  the 
censures  from  these  countries  are  ambiguous,  rather  than  hostile. 
Those  from  Mecklenburg,  Brunswick,  Brandenburg  and  the  cities 
of  Lower  Saxony  are  decidedly,  one  might  almost  say,  unquali- 
fiedly favorable.  The  same  may  be  said  of  that  of  Liibeck,  Ham- 
burg and  Liineburg,  and  of  that  from  Wiirtemberg,  Baden  and 
Henneberg.  That  from  Prussia  approves  the  Torgau  Book  in 
its  general  content ;  it  only  requires  that  it  proceed  further  in 
the  same  direction.  Taken  as  a  whole,  and  as  representing  the 
Lutheran  churches  of  Germany  it  can  be  afifirmed  that  these 
censures  are  more  favorable  than  unfavorable  toward  the  Torgau 
Book.  They  show  that  the  professed  adherents  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession  are  loyal  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  and  that  the  ma- 
jority are  practically  unanimous  in  their  approval  of  that  ex- 
planation and  formulation  of  the  same  that  appears  in  the 
Torgau  Book. 

But  those  churches  which  spoke  with  opposition — some  of  them 
with  uncertainty,  some  with  ambiguity — did  not  regard  them- 
selves, neither  were  they  regarded  by  their  contemporaries,  as  un- 
Lutheran.  They  knew,  and  their  contemporaries  knew,  that  they 
confessed  themselves  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  as  that  doctrine 
had  been  exhibited  in  their  own  Corpora  Doctrhme,  which,  with- 
out a  single  exception,  contained  the  Augsburg  Confession  and 
the  Apology,  and  the  most  of  them  also  one  or  both  of  Luther's 
catechisms,  and  some  of  them  also  the  Schmalkald  Articles.  It 
is  conceded,  without  hesitation,  that  the  Anhalt  censure,  through 
the  influence  of  Wolfgang  Amling,  exhibits  a  one-sided  Melanch- 
thonistic  spirit :  yet  two  countervailing  facts  'must  be  reckoned 
"*  Anton,  p.  ]94;   Diillinger,  Hcformaixon,  III.,  472. 


THE    CENSURES   OF   THE    TORGAU    BOOK.  467 

Avith.  namely  (a)  that  the  Anhalt  censure  declares  the  willing- 
ness of  its  authors  to  add  to  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum 
the  Catechisms  and  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  or  the  public  writ- 
ings of  Luther;*  (b)  that  when  in  the  latter  part  of  March,  1577, 
Jacob  Andreae  held  a  private  interview,  three  hours  in  length, 
Avith  Amling  and  Abraham  Ulrich,  Superintendent,  at  Zerbst,  he 
reported  as  a  result  that  the  theologians  had  declared  that  when 
he  read  their  censure  he  would  find  that  there  was  not  much 
difference  between  them,  and  that  they  would  not  act  stubbornly 
nor  stand  in  the  way  of  Christian  unity.f 

The  theologians  of  Pomerania  and  those  of  Holstein  had  also 
expressed  their  preference  for  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippi- 
cum,  but  these  censures  themselves  are  witnesses  against  a  one- 
sided jNIelanchthonism,  as  are  also  others  yet  to  be  quoted.  And 
he  would  be  regarded  as  a  calumniator  who  should  say  that  Su- 
perintendent Jacob  Kung,  the  author  of  the  Pomeranian  censure, 
and  Superintendent  Paul  von  Eitzen,  the  author  of  the  Holstein 
censure,  were  holding  up  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Philippicum  as 
a  mask  under  which  they  meant  to  conceal  Calvinism,  or  Crypto- 
Calvinism,  in  any  of  their  forms. 

The  most  embarrassing  circumstance  for  the  authors  of  the 
Torgau  Book  was  the  fact  that  so  many  of  the  adverse  censures, 
as  those  froril  Pomerania,  Holstein,  Ansbach,  Niirnberg,  came 
from  churches  and  places  on  which  not  even  the  shadow^  of  suspi- 
cion rested.  ]\Iost  of  them  had  indicated  their  Lutheran  ortho- 
doxy by  the  incorporation  of  Luther's  public  writings  in  their 
standards  of  doctrine.  The  chief  grounds  of  objection-  were  the 
mistreatment  of  IMelanchthon,  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity,  and  the 
exaltation  of  Luther's  private — most  significantly — his  contro- 
versial writings,  to  the  position  of  normative  authority  for 
doctrine — a  procedure  utterly  contrary  to  Luther's  own  funda- 
mental principle  that  only  the  Word  of  God  should  determine 
what  should  be  taught  and  believed  in  the  Church,  and  who  had 
expressed  the  wish  that  his  own  books  might  be  consigned  to 
oblivion,  and  that  Melanchthon's  books,  especially  the  Loci  Com- 
munes, might  live  and  instruct  the  theologians  and  pastors.! 

*  Planck,  VI.,  p.  512. 

t  Zeitschrift  fur  Historische  Theologie,  1867,  p.  27,  article  by  Pressel, 
drawn  from  archival  sources,  entitled:  Churfurst  Ludtcig  von  der  Ffdlz  und 
die  Konliordienformel. 

t  See  the  Preface  to  Luther 's  Opera,  .Jena  Edition,  vol.  I.,  dated  March 
5,  1545.  That  Luther  knew  of  and  commended  the  Loci  of  1535  and  of 
1543-4,  is  as  historically  certain  as  it  is  historically  certain  that  he  wrote 
and  subscribed  this  Preface.    In  the  year  1540  he  said  to  a  group  of  students 


468  THE    CENSURES    OF    THE    TOKGAU    BOOK. 

at  Ms  own  table,  in  the  presence  of  Dr.  George  Major,  then  Eector  of  the 
University :  ' '  Bead  Philip 's  Loci  Communes  next  to  the  Bible. ' '  So  testi- 
fies Mathesius  in  his  Leieii  Dr.  Martin  Luthers,  Die  Zwolfte  Predigt,  who 
was  present  and  heard  it.  The  entire  Wittenberg  Theological  Faculty,  whose 
head  at  that  time  was  Melanchthon,  testified  in  1559 :  ' '  The  volume  of  the 
Loci  Communes  published  the  year  immediately  preceding  his  death,  Luther, 
in  a  public  declaration,  expressly  commended  to  the  Church,  so  that  beyond 
all  doubt  he  witnessed  that  his  own  views  agree  with  that  doctrine  which 
is  embraced  and  expressed  in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  the  Loci  Com- 
munes." Expositio  Eorum,  Quae  Theologi  Academiae  Wittebergensis,  etc. 
(published  at  Wittenberg,  1559),  p.  Sss.  3.  In  1570  the  theologians  of 
Leipzig  and  Wittenberg  and  the  Superintendents  of  Electoral  Saxony,  after 
describing  the  edition  published  ' '  three  years  before  Luther 's  death, ' '  say : 
' '  We  know  and  can  prove  by  those  who  were  much  and  often  with  Luther 
that  he  held  and  esteemed  this  book  so  highly,  that  he  constantly  kept  it  by 
him,  and  maintained  that  such  an  excellent  book  had  not  been  written  since 
the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  said  that  he  would  rather  suffer  his  books  to 
be  destroyed  than  that  this  book  of  Philip's  should  be  removed  from  the 
Church  and  be  lost. ' '  Endlicher  Bericht,  fols.  17,  18.  Hence  very  properly 
has  Credner  said  that  "Luther  took  no  offense  at  Melanchthon 's  changes 
in  the  Loci  Communes,  though  he  compared  this  book  to  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. And  when,  at  the  close  of  his  life,  he  awarded  it  the  'superiority' 
to  other  books,  and  the  question  is  asked:  To  which  of  the  various  editions 
we  are  able  to  accept  as  Luther's  sure  answer  to  this  question:  To  all. 
For  in  all  the  Scripture-principle  and  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith 
are  correctly  taught  and  guarded."  Exorterungen  Kirclilicher  Zeitfragen, 
p.  110.    Frankfort  am  Main,  1846. 

In  the  year  1588,  Christian  I.,  Elector  of  Saxony,  "willed  and  ordered 
that  Melanchthon 's  Loci  Communes,  a  book  of  which  Dr.  Luther  had  testi- 
fied that  it  is  a  work  of  such  excellence  that  hitherto  not  much  like  it  had 
been  written  in  theology,  shall  be  diligently  read  by  the  students  according 
to  the  way  in  which  the  author  understood  it  and  has  explained  in  his  other 
books."  Forstemann,  Liber  Decanorum,  p.  165.  This  document  is  copied 
by  Forstemann  ex  autographo  Decanorum.  No  one  could  presume  that  the 
Elector  and  his  counsellors  had  reference  to  other  than  current  editions,  or 
that  the  Elector  would  confine  Luther's  testimonv  to  the  first  edition. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

THE   BERGIC   BOOK. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  some  of  the  censures  complain  of  the 
prolixity  of  the  Torgau  Book.  This  is  especially  the  case  with 
the  censure  of  the  theologians  of  Landgrave  William  of  Hesse. 

1.     The  Epitome. 

To  meet  this  objection  and  to  conciliate  the  Hessians,  Andreae, 
with  the  approbation  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  undertook  the 
preparation  of  an  epitome  of  the  Torgau  Book.  In  this  epitome 
he  accurately  reproduces  the  substance  of  the  original.  First, 
in  the  ease  of  each  article  he  makes  A  Statement  of  the  Contro- 
versy involved.  Then,  in  a  series  of  positive  affirmations,  he 
presents  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Article,  and  in  a  series 
of  negative  statements  he  rejects  and  condemns  the  doctrines  that 
stand  in  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  affirmed.  In  the  Article 
On  the  Person  of  Christ  he  has  greatly  increased  the  negatives, 
both  in  number  and  in  extent ;  and  to  the  Article  as  a  whole  he 
imparted  a  decidedly  ubiquitarian  expression.  To  the  epitome 
as  a  whole  he  gave  the  name :  Siimmarischer  Begriff  der  Strei- 
tigen  Artikel  zwischen  den  Theologen  Augsiurgischer  Confes- 
sion in  nachfolgender  Widerholung  nach  Anleitung  Oottes 
Worts  christlich  erkldret  und  vergleichen;  that  is:  A  Summary 
Statement  of  the  Articles  Controverted  among  the  Theologians 
of  the  Augsljurg  Confession,  Explained  and  Adjusted  in  a 
Christian  Manner  according  to  the  Direction  of  the  Word  of 
God. 

This  Epitome  was  sent  to  Landgrave  William,  February  9, 
1577,  followed  by  a  letter  from  Jacob  Andreae,  dated  February 
13,  1577.  The  letter  informs  the  Landgrave  of  the  progress  that 
had  been  made  in  the  work  of  concord,  in  that  all  the  theologians 
of  all  the  Princes,  Avith  only  a  few  exceptions,  have  accepted  the 
Torgau  Book  in  essentials.  The  hope  is  expressed  that  the  ortho- 
dox theologians  will  find  much  less  to  dispute  about  in  the  Epit- 
ome than  they  had  found  in  the  Torgau  Book.  Then  the  declara- 
tion is  made  that  the  devil,  with  whom  they  have  to  do,  is  not  the 
devil  of  flesh  and  blood,  nor  the  devil  of  the  sacramentarians, 

(469) 


470  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

but  a  worse  devil,  such  as  Luther  had  spoken  of  in  some  of  his 
books,  the  devil  who  would  treat  the  person  of  Christ  as  he  is 
treated  in  the  Turkish  Alcoran,  as  recentl}^  he  had  observed  is 
done  by  the  professors  of  theology  in  Leipzig,  Jena  and  Witten- 
berg.* 

From  this  letter  the  Landgrave  learned  for  the  first  time  that 
the  Torgau  Book  was  to  be  revised  with  reference  to  the  censures 
of  the  theologians  and  was  meant  to  be  officially  sanctioned.  But 
on  reading  the  Epitome  he  discovered  that  it  contained  in  sub- 
stance the  very  doctrines  to  which  his  theologians  had  objected, 
while  Andreae's  arrogance  and  his  wanton  attack  on  the  theo- 
logians of  the  three  universities  filled  him  with  bitter  wrath  and 
indignation,  and  increased  his  opposition  to  the  Torgau  Book. 

2.  The  First  Revision. 
As  early  as  January  17,  1577,  Andreae  proposed  to  the  Elec- 
tor of  Saxony  that,  so  soon  as  the  other  censures  come  in,  a 
commission  of  three  orthodox  theologians  be  appointed  to  ex- 
amine the  censures  and  to  determine  the  form  of  the  Torgau 
Book.  "In  this  way,"  he  thought,  "preparation  could  be  made 
for  holding  a  general  convention,  and  that  not  only  would  time 
be  gained  and  expenses  reduced,  but  also  that  a  better  and  surer 
understanding  among  the  theologians  would  follow,  when  th(? 
representatives  and  theologians  of  each  principality  shall  see  that 
the  censure  of  no  Prince  or  theologian  has  been  overlooked. ' '  f 
In  a  letter  dated  February  7th,  Andreae  proposed  to  the 
Elector  that  Selneccer,  Chemnitz  and  he  himself  should  meet  at 
a  suitable  place  for  the  purpose  of  taking  in  hand  all  the  cen- 
sures and  opinions  on  the  Torgau  Book,  and  of  reading  and 
considering  them  carefully,  and  of  introducing  into  the  Torgau 
Book,  written  on  the  opposite  page,  all  that  might  be  deemed 
necessary  and  profitable.  In  a  postscript  he  suggested  the  cloister 
of  Bergen,  near  Magdeburg,  as  the  place  of  meeting,  as  that  is 
about  equidistant  from  the  three  proposed  commissioners,  and 
is  a  free  cloister,  whose  abbot  is  interested  in  the  work  of  pacifi- 
cation and  will  welcome  the  commissioners  as  guests. J 

Andreae's  proposition  was  approved  by  the  Elector,  who,  the 
following  day,  wrote  to  Chemnitz,  inviting  him  to  join  x\ndreae 
and  Selneccer  in  weighing  the  censures  and  in  introducing  into 

*  Heppe,  IIT.,  1-56  et  seqq.  Andreae's  letter  in  Heppe,  III.,  399  et 
seqq. 

t  Pressel  in  Zertschriff  fi'ir  Histnrische  Tlwolngic.  1867,  p.  IS. 

i.  Planck,  Vl.,  5.i.i.    Pressel,  ui  supra,  jip.  IS.  19. 


THE    BERGIC    BOOK.  471 

the  Formula  wliatever  they  consider  profitable  and  necessary.* 
Chemnitz  accepted  the  invitation,  and  March  1,  1577,  by  order 
of  the  Elector  and  with  the  approval  of  the  Administrator,  the 
three  theologians  named  met  in  a  room  over  the  chapel  of  the 
cloister  of  Bergen.  The  triumvirate,  as  these  three  men  have 
been  very  generally  called,  carefully  examined  the  censures  and 
weighed  the  desiderata  of  all.  The  work  went  forward  so  rapidly 
that,  March  14th,  they  made  and  signed  their  report  to  the  Elec- 
tor. They  begin  by  saying  that  after  carefully  reading  the  cen- 
sures that  had  been  sent  in  they  find  that  all  the  Princes  and 
theologians,  except  those  of  Holstein  and  Anhalt,  were  pleased 
with  the  Torgau  Book,  and  were  favorable  to  the  work  of  con- 
cord. They  express  their  gratification  with  the  discovery  that 
all  the  censures,  except  those  from  Anhalt  and  Plolstein,  agree 
on  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the  three  ancient  creeds,  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  the  Catechisms 
of  Luther,  "as  the  basis  and  explanation  of  our  Christian  faith 
and  Confession."  They  meet  the  wish  of  the  Ansbach  theolo- 
gians for  a  better  arrangement  of  the  Articles  by  saying  that  they 
had  thought  it  expedient  to  follow  the  Augsburg  Confession. 
They  reply  to  the  criticism  that  the  Torgau  Book  is  too  prolix 
by  pointing  to  the  Epitome  that  had  been  already  made.  To 
the  objection  of  some,  that  the  language  employed  was  too  strong, 
they  oppose  the  objection  of  others — Hamburg,  Liibeck  and 
Llinelnirg — that  the  language  employed  was  too  mild.  They  de- 
cided that  inasmuch  as  objections  had  been  made  to  the  phrase, 
corpus  doctrinae,  it  would  be  advisable  to  drop  it,  and  to  sub- 
stitute another  phrase  for  it,  and  to  entitle  their  work :  Von  dem 
Summarischen  Begriff,  (Jrund-Regel  und  Richtschnur,  nach  wel- 
cher  alle  Lehr  geurtheileto,  und  die  eingefallenen  Irrungen 
Christlich  erklaret  und  entscheiden  werden  ;  that  is,  Of  a  Compre- 
hensive Snmmarii,  Basis,  Rule  and  Canon  aecording  to  whieh  all 
Doctrines  are  to  he  Judged,  and  the  Differences  that  have  arisen 
are  to  be  Explained  and  Decided.  They  defend  their  action  in 
prefixing  the  word  "unaltered"  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  by 
declaring  that  in  this  way  they  can  best  meet  the  calumnies  of 
the  Papists  and  the  conduct  of  the  Sacramentarians.  They  deem 
it  advisable  to  omit  the  names  of  Melanchthon  and  Brentz,  and 
to  submit  their  books  to  the  judgment  of  the  Chiu'ch  according 
to  the  foregoing  rule  and  canon.  Because  the  churches  in  many 
places  have  been  confused  by  errors,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
"The  Elector's  letter   in    Relitmeyer.   ITI..  Beylaoe.  p.   28.3. 


472  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

guarding  the  young',  they  unanimously  recommend  that  books 
containing  false  doctrines,  and  their  authors,  shall  be  condemned, 
and  that  a  clause  shall  be  supplied  which  shall  condemn  all  per- 
sons who  may  write  anything  in  opposition  to  the  Torgau  Book; 
and  since  there  are  different  opinions  in  regard  to  the  books  of 
Melanchthon,  and  since  they  contain  errors  on  Free-will,  on  the 
Lord's  Supper,  on  the  Communicatio  Idiomatum,  they  declare 
that  "an  unavoidable  necessity  requires  that  a  proper  admoni- 
tion be  made  in  this  Explanation  (the  Torgau  Book)  in  regard 
to  the  aforenamed  books  of  Philip, ' '  that  is,  the  Loci  Commuyies, 
the  Examen  Ordinandornm  and  the  letter  to  the  Elector  of  the 
Palatinate  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  regard  to  subscription  to 
this  improved  formula,  they  insist  that  "necessity  will  require 
that  a  common,  uniform,  clearly  defined  formula  shall  be  com- 
posed, so  that  no  false  teacher  can  hide  himself,  and  then  every- 
one shall  simply  subscribe  his  name  and  surname  and  that  of 
the  church  which  at  the  time  he  serves.  This  formula  is  to  be 
composed  in  a  synod  yet  to  be  held,  and  thereafter  this  explana- 
tion is  to  be  subscribed  and  used  in  the  consistory  of  every  place, 
and  in  the  future  no  one  is  to  be  admitted  to  the  ministry  who 
has  not  previously  been  examined  on  these  articles  as  propriety 
and  necessity  require.  Then,  after  he  has  properly  declared 
himself,  he  is  to  subscribe  the  said  formula  with  his  own  hands. ' ' 
Visitations  and  examinations  are  to  be  instituted  for  the  purpose 
of  preventing  the  recurrence  of  error.  "It  is  also  highly  neces- 
sary that  a  proper  and  strict  oversight  of  the  press  be  maintained, 
in  order  that  not  all  kinds  of  books  be  printed  without  distinc- 
tion, though  useful  books  are  not  to  be  proscribed."  The  dif- 
ference of  view  in  regard  to  exorcism,  "which  is  not  of  the 
essence  of  Baptism,  and  by  which  the  devil  is  not  driven  out  of 
the  child,"  may  be  treated  at  the  proposed  synod.  In  regard  to 
the  proposed  synod  they  are  of  the  opinion  that,  in  addition  to 
Electors  and  Princes,  there  should  be  representatives  of  the 
counts  and  of  the  cities  of  Saxony  and  Upper  Germany,  so  that 
there  may  be  greater  confidence  among  the  ministers,  and  so 
that  concord  may  be  promoted.  They  say  that  they  ■  have 
examined  the  Epitome  and  find  that  it  contains  in  summary 
all  that  is  found  in  the  Torgau  Book  itself.  Finally  they 
express  the  judgment  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  the  censures  to 
make  intercession  for  "the  poor  exiles,"  since  at  Torgau,  in  the 
year  1576,  the  Elector  had  declared  himself  gracious.* 

*  The  Eeport  is  given  in  full  by  Hutter,  Cap.  XIII.     Summary  by  Planck, 
VI.,  537,  and  by  Pressel,  ut  supra,  pp.  19  et  seqq. 


THE    BERGIC    BOOK.  '  473 

This  report,  signed  Jacobus  Audreae,  D.  IMartinus  Chemnitius, 
D.  Nicolaus  Selnecceriis  D.,  so  pleased  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
that  he  immediately  dispatched  one  of  his  privy  counsellors,  Dr. 
David  Pfeiffer,  to  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg  with  a  message 
of  the  following  import :  That  all  the  articles  of  the  Torgau 
Book  have  been  approved  by  nearly  all  of  the  most  distinguished 
Princes:  that  it  is  now  hoped  that  all  disputes  will  be  avoided; 
that,  in  order  to  promote  this  important  work,  the  Elector  of 
Saxony  does  not  hesitate  to  inform  Brandenburg  how  matters 
have  gone  in  Saxony,  and  to  propose  to  the  Elector  of  Branden- 
burg that  all  parties  should  meet  at  Magdeburg,  June  25th.* 

August  had  also  instructed  Dr.  Pfeiffer  to  agree  with  the  Elec- 
tor of  Brandenburg  on  a  letter  which,  in  the  name  of  the  Electors, 
respectively,  of  Saxony,  Brandenburg  and  the  Palatinate,  should 
invite  the  other  Princes  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  the  pro- 
posed convention.  The  Elector  of  Brandenburg  was  in  general 
well  pleased  with  the  proposition  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  and 
declared  himself  ready  to  join  in  sending  to  the  Elector  of  the 
Palatinate  and  in  inviting  him  to  take  part  in  the  work,  though 
he  did  not  think  that  the  synod  should  be  called  before  October 
6th,  and  he  suggested  that  meanwhile  the  theologians  at  Dresden 
should  bring  the  censures  into  a  correct  Corpus  and  should  send 
it  to  the  different  Estates.  In  this  way  the  mind  of  the  theolog- 
ians could  be  better  ascertained,  since  there  was  danger  of  in- 
creasing the  distraction.  After  some  hesitation  and  vacillation 
it  was  decided  at  Dresden,  partly  because  of  the  hostile  attitude 
of  the  Prince  of  Anhalt,  and  partly  because  of  the  arrival  of 
additional  censures,  to  pursue  a  different  course. f 

3.     The  Second  Revision. 

At  the  suggestion  of  Andreae,  doubtless,  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
proposed  to  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg,  April  1st,  to  send  two 
of  his  theologians,  who,  with  Andreae,  Chemnitz,  Selneccer  and 
Chytraeus,  should  make  a  new  revision  of  the  Torgau  Book  in 
view  of  the  censures  that  had  been  sent  in.  This  pleased  the 
Elector  of  Brandenburg,  who  appointed  Andrew  Musculus  and 
Christopher  Koerner,  who  had  helped  to  compose  the  Torgau 
Book,  to  take  part  in  this  second  revision.  Prom  this  time  on 
Andreae  thought  no  more  about  a  great  convention  of  theolog- 

*  Pressel,  p.  23. 

t  Planck,  VI.,  .545;   Pressel,  p.  2.5;  Kolde,  EinleiUing,  p.  Ixxii. 


> 


474  THE    BEKGIC    BOOK. 

ians,  but  at  most  only  of  a  convention  of  Princes,  which  should 
sanction  the  conclusions  reached  by  the  theologians.  He  has  in- 
deed grown  very  confident  of  the  success  of  the  work  of  concord, 
for,  May  4th,  he  wrote  to  ^Nlarbach:  "Luther,  who  died  and  was 
buried  at  Wittenberg,  is,  as  you  see,  risen  from  the  dead :  at 
least  he  has  already  raised  his  head  from  the  grave.  The  body 
will  soon  follow.  The  work  of  concord  is  making  excellent 
progress. ' ' 

April  27th  the  Elector  of  Saxony  invited  the  six  theologians 
named  above  to  meet  at  Bergen,  ^Nlay  19th,  and  requested  the 
abbot  to  receive  and  entertain  them,  supposing  that  the  con- 
ference would  not  last  more  than  three  days.  The  six  came  to- 
gether at  the  time  appointed  and  began  their  work  by  carefully 
examining  the  censures.  Much  attention  was  given  to  the  desid- 
erata of  Wiirtemberg,  Baden  and  Henneberg.  All  questions  were 
decided  by  the  vote  of  the  majority,  though  Andreae  had  his 
own  way  in  almost  everything.  He  and  Chemnitz  came  into  such 
violent  collision  with  each  other  over  some  points  "that  the 
sparks  flew."  Chytraeus  opposed  all  changes  made  in  the 
Torgau  Book,  especially  the  reception  of  so  many  citations  from 
Luther's  writings  on  the  corporeal  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Lord's  Supper,  and  the  changes  made  in  the  Article  on  Free- 
will. But  he  was  in  the  minority,  and  in  excited  mood  he  left 
the  cloister  and  disavowed  participation  in  the  composition  of 
the  new  formula.  In  the  year  1581  he  declared  that  the  changes 
made  in  the  Torgau  Book  were  made  by  the  triumvirs  in  his  ab- 
sence, that  is,  before  he  came  to  Bergen,  and  he  expressed  regret 
that  the  Torgau  Book  had  not  been  allowed  to  remain  in  the 
form  in  which  it  had  been  composed  and  sent  to  the  Churches  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.* 

However,  notwithstanding  the  want  of  harmony  in  the  com- 
mittee of  six,  the  work  of  revising  the  Torgau  Book  the  second 
time  was  completed,  and  a  report  to  the  Elector  was  signed  by 
the  six.  May  28,  1577.  In  this  report  they  say  that  they  have 
carefully  read  the  censures  of  the  Torgau  Book,  and  have  pre- 
pared one  volume,  which  they  believe  will  be  accepted  by  all 
pious  teachers  of  the  pure  doctrine;  that  they  have  carefully 
examined  the  Epitome,  and  have  decided  that  it  shall  be  placed 
before  the  larger  work :  that  they  would  be  pleased  to  have  a 

*  Epistolae,  p.  109.  The  other  facts  presented  in  this  paragraph  are 
taken  from  Anton,  pp.  196-7;  Planck,  VI.,  546;  Heppe.  III.,  205-6;  Pressel, 
ut  supra,  pp.  -6,  30;  Sohiitz.  ]'ifa  Chyfraei.  j^assim :  Balthaser,  Historie 
Torgisclien  Bnchs.  juissim. 


THE    BERGIC    BOOK.  475 

synod  of  all  the  clergy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  there  is 
danger  that  greater  schisms  would  follow,  for  they  have  ascer- 
tained that  "in  very  many  places  there  are  ministers  of  the 
churches  who  would  show  themselves  absolutely  wayward  and 
obstinate  in  regard  to  doctrine,  and  we  also  greatly  suspect  that 
there  are  some  Princes  in  the  same  countries  who  are  inoculated 
with  like  opinions  and  prejudices."  They  therefore  give  it  as 
their  "opinion  that  it  would  be  altogether  safer,  and  without  any 
danger,  if  subscription  to  the  Christian  Concord  be  first  required 
(exigatur),  in  writing  or  by  letters,  from  some  of  the  Estates  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  execution  of  this  our  plan  can 
be  instituted  in  the  following  manner: 

"First,  that  this  subscription  be  required  before  all  (ante 
onmes  exigatur)  from  the  theologians  within  those  Estates  which 
from  their  censures  are  known  to  be  in  favor  of  the  purer  doc- 
trine, and  whose  subscription  would  undoubtedly  ensue  at  once. 
Such  are  especially  those  of  your  two  Highnesses  (the  Elector  of 
Saxony  and  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg)  :  and  also  now  by  the 
grace  of  God  the  theologians  of  the  Most  Illustrious  Elector  Lud- 
wig  of  the  Palatinate,  through  whom  he  has  in  a  Christian  man- 
ner restored  the  consistories  of  his  Highness  and  the  churches  in 
the  entire  Palatinate.  Then  from  those  in  Lower  Saxony,  and 
in  the  Mecklenburg,  Liineburg  and  Brunswick  dominions;  then 
in  Grubenhagen,  in  the  maritime  part  of  Saxony  and  in  the  cities 
adjacent  thereto,  except  Bremen  alone.  Then  from  those  who 
are  in  Franconia  of  Upper  Germany  and  in  Swabia.  Then  in  the 
Margravate  of  George  Frederick  of  Naumbach.  Then  in  the  do- 
minions of  Count  Palatine  Philip  Ludwig,  of  Count  Palatine 
John,  of  the  Duke  of  Wiirtemberg  and  the  Margrave  of  Baden. 
Then  from  the  Free  Cities  of  TTpper  Germany,  such  as  Ratisbon, 
Augsburg,  Ulm,  of  whose  theologians  (Niirnberg  excepted)  and 
their  subscriptions  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

"When  indeed  such  subscriptions  shall  have  been  obtained 
from  the  above-named  Most  Illustrious  Electors  and  Princes,  and 
from  some  of  the  Free  Cities,  it  can  then  be  required  for  these 
very  reasons  from  the  remaining  Estates  of  the  Empire.  If  at 
the  present  a  sufficient  time  be  allowed  them  for  deliberation 
they  will  themselves  think  seriously  about  embracing  this  Chris- 
tian movement.  For  when  by  means  of  this  subscription  they 
.shall  have  learned  of  the  unanimous  consensus  of  those  three 
Most  Illustrious  Electors  and  Princes,  the  reasons  by  which  they 
have  seemed  hitherto  restrained  and  hindered,  will  have  been 


476  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

refuted.  By  the  assistance  of  divine  grace  it  will  be  brought 
about  that  the  same  subscription  Avill  be  obtained  from  them. 

' '  But  lest  in  such  subscriptions  there  be  some  difference  under 
which  false,  restless  and  obstinate  doctors  may  hide  themselves^ 
this  admonition  must  not  be  overlooked  in  the  letter  that  is  sent 
out  for  obtaining  this  subscription,  namely,  that  all  the  theo- 
logians shall  be  on  their  guard  that  no  one  in  subscribing  shall 
of  his  own  accord  employ  long  sentences  which  may  contain  some 
special  explanation :  but  let  them  write  onl}-  the  bare  name,  to- 
gether with  the  surname  and  the  designation  of  the  place 
(Avhether  church  or  school)  which  they  serve. 

"And  since  our  opponents,  the  Papists,  both  within  and  with- 
out the  German  Empire,  make  the  charge  that  scarcely  two 
preachers  can  be  found  in  our  churches  who  hold  alike  in  all  the 
Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  it  is  our  judgment  in  this 
matter  that  in  obtaining  the  subscriptions  the  following  order  be 
observed :  Let  the  doctors  of  theology,  Avho  in  the  universities 
belong  to  the  consistories,  subscribe  first,  in  order  that  it  may 
be  certain  as  to  their  character,  and  that  through  them  false 
teachers  may  not  at  any  time  be  introduced,  nor  received  in  the 
schools,  nor  unorthodox  pastors  in  the  churches. 

"Then  in  each  city  the  pastor  with  his  chaplains  or  vicars 
(w^here  such  are  wanting,  th^  Superintendent  with  two  rural 
preachers)  not  only  in  his  own  name,  but  also  in  that  of  the  other 
pastors,  chaplains  and  teachers  who  belong  to  the  same  diocese 
(provided  they  shall  have  first  obtained  from  such  the  permission 
and  authority  to  subscribe),  shall  subscribe  in  about  the  follow- 
ing manner:  'I,  John  N.,  Pastor  and  Superintendent,  with  N. 
and  together  with  this  N.  also  Pastor  N.  with  N.  and  N.  N.,  Pas- 
tors in  conjunction  with  that  N.  N.,  subscribe  both  for  ourselves 
and  for  N..  Pastor,  Chaplain  and  Teacher,  whose  names  are  as 
follows. ' 

' '  In  regard  to  those  Evangelical  Princes  who  have  not  yet  de- 
clared whether  they  favor  the  work  of  concord  or  not,  they 
should  be  heard  as  to  their  doubts  and  objections,  so  that  they 
may  be  answered  and  then  invited  to  subscribe.  If  they  still 
refuse,  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  have  anything  more  to  do  with 
them.  Care  must  be  taken  that  no  one  hereafter  be  allowed  to 
start  new  controversies,  either  in  the  churches  or  in  the  schools. 
The  churches  are  to  be  warned  against  the  Crypto-Calvanistic 
literature  that  had  been  circulated  in  Saxony  and  elsewhere,  and 
a  censorship  of  the  press  is  recommended.    In  the  matter  of  exe- 


THE    BERGIC    BOOK.  477 

cuting  the  plan  of  union  they  refer  to  what  they  had  proposed 
in  the  preceding  ^March,  'when  the  Torgau  Formula  or  Corpus 
Doctrinae  was  amended.' 

"Done  at  Bergen  near  Magdeburg  28th  May  &c.  1597."  * 
The  name  which  they  gave  to  the  second  part  of  the  work,  the 
Solida  Declaratio,  is:  Griindliche  [originally  "Allgemeine"]  f, 
lautere,  richtige  und  endliche  Wiederholung  und  Erklarung  et- 
licher  Artikel  Augsburgischer  Confession,  in  welehen  eine  zeit 
lang  uuter  etlichen  Theologen  derselbigen  zugethan,  Streit  vorge- 
f alien,  nach  Anleitung  Gottes  Worts  und  summarischem  Inhalt 
unserer  christlichen  Lehr  beigelegt  und  verglichen;  that  is,  "A 
Solid,  Clear,  Correct  and  Final  Repetition  and  Explanation  of 
Some  Articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  regard  to  which 
a  Controversy,  that  has  for  some  time  Existed  among  the  Theo- 
logians of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  is  Settled  and  Adjusted  ac- 
cording to  the  Direction  of  God's  Word  and  a  Compendious 
Statement  of  our  Christian  Doctrine." 

This  is  the  Bergic  Book,  which  is  generally  known  as  Tlte 
Formula  of  Concord,  called  in  German:  Die  Konkordienformel. 

4.  The  Changes  Made  in  the  Torgau  Booli. 
The  censures  of  the  Torgau  Book  revealed  perhaps  more  clearly 
than  had  been  previously  known  the  existence  of  three  parties 
in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  German}^  There  were  the  Lutheran 
zealots,  commonly  spoken  of  as  the  Ultras,  the  extremists,  the 
gnesio-Lutherans.  These  identified  Luther's  doctrine  with  Chris- 
tianity, and  Luther's  spirit  with  the  Spirit  of  Christ.t  These 
Flacianists,  as  they  are  also  called,  had  joined  hands  with  the 

*  The  full  text  of  this  Keport  is  given  in  Latin  by  Hospinian,  fol.  Ill 
et  seqq.;  in  extracts  and  summaries  by  Anton,  p.  207  et  seqq.;  Planck,  VI., 
548  et  seqq.;  Heppe,  III.,  208  et  seqq.;  Pressel,  ut  supra,  pp.  30  et  seqq. 
Some  historians  are  inclined  to  believe  that  a  conference  for  further  revision 
of  the  Torgau  Book  was  held  at  Bergen  sometime  between  the  March  and 
the  May  conferences,  attended  only  by  the  first  triumvirate.  See  Anton,  pp. 
201-202;  Planck,  VI.,  544  et  seqq.;  Heppe,  III.,  205.  These  authors  have 
probably  construed  Andreae's  visit  to  Bergen,  in  one  of  his  journeys,  the 
last  of  March,  as  evidence  that  a  conference  of  revision  was  held  at  that 
time.  But,  as  Pressel  says,  ' '  this  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  a  revi- 
sion of  the  Torgau  Book. ' '  Ut  supra,  p.  28,  note  15.  The  Eeport  of  the 
May  Conference  refers  to  the  March  Conference,  and  to  no  other,  and  we 
have  only  the  two  reports.  Chytraeus  mentions  a  conference  in  March  and 
one  in  .lune,  though  he  e\'idently  has  reference  to  the  May  Conference. 
Epistolae,  p.  418.  Recent  writers,  Seeberg,  Realencyclopadie,^  vol.  10,  p. 
742,  and  Kolde,  Einleituiu/,  p.  Ixxii.,  make  no  reference  to  a  third  confer- 
ence. Our  own  investigation  lea<1s  us  to  eonchnle  that  there  were  only  two 
conferences  of  revision  at  Bergen. 

t  See  Anton,  p.  211. 

%  Compare  Andreae  's  letter  to  Heshuss. 


478  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

Swabians  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ  and  in  that  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  This  party  was,  in  the  main,  absolutely 
nncomproniising.  It  now  had  its  culminating  expression  in  the 
Prussian  Censure,  and  to  a  large  extent  also  in  the  Wiirtemberg- 
Baden-Henneberg  Censure. 

Then  there  was  the  moderate  party,  soundl}^  Lutheran,  even 
in  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  but  with  a  grateful  regard 
for  the  authority  of  Melanchthon.  Chemnitz,  Selneccer,  the  Eo- 
stock  Theological  Faculty,  and  the  leading  theologians  and 
Church  officials  of  Holstein  and  Pomerania,  belonged  to  this 
party,  and  had  not — to  speak  generically — shown  an  active  hand 
in  the  controversies  between  the  Flacianists  and  the  Philippists. 
Thirdly,  there  were  the  Philippists  of  Electoral  Saxony  and  of 
other  sections  of  Germany,  who,  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  were  Calvinists,  rather  than  Lutherans. 

These  parties  were  separated  from  each  other  by  distrust  and 
hostility.  The  Flacianists  had  but  little  confidence  in  the  mod- 
erate party,  and  the  third  party  was  repudiated  by  both  the 
others.  The  effort  made  at  Zerbst,  in  the  year  1570,  to  reconcile 
all  these  parties,  had  signally  failed.  The  Torgau  Book  AA^as 
constructed  mainly,  if  not  entirely,  with  reference  to  the  Ex- 
tremists and  the  Moderates,  though  it  represented  essentially 
the  position  of  the  moderate  party.  It  is  not  probable  that  the 
Philippists  Avere  taken  into  the  account  in  the  construction  and 
explanation  of  the  articles,  that  is,  in  the  positive  and  didactic 
statements.  If  the  other  tAA'o  parties  could  be  reconciled,  the 
Philippists  might  be  brought  under  subjection  by  the  method 
subsequently  proposed  for  taking  the  subscriptions,  or  they 
might  be  entirely  ignored. 

The  censures  pointed  out  the  direction  that  the  Avork  of  con- 
cord must  take  if  it  was  to  end  in  success.  The  Flacianists  could 
not  be  induced  to  come  to  the  position  of  the  Moderates,  the 
position,  essentially,  of  Chemnitz,  Selneccer  and  Chytraeus.  The 
Moderates  might  be  induced  to  approximate  the  position  of  the 
Extremists  and  to  sacrifice  Melanchthon.  The  Flacianists  and 
their  allies,  the  SAvabians,  Brandenburgers  and  others,  were 
probably  more  numerous,  and  certainly  more  influential,  than 
the  Moderates.  It  is  easy  to  comprehend  the  psychology  of  the 
situation,  and  to  understand  the  thoughts,  feelings  and  motives 
that  prevailed  at  Bergen,  especially  AA'hen  Ave  knoAV  that  by  this 
time  Jacob  Andreae  had  become  very  dictatorial,  and  that  Mus- 
culus  and  Koerner  had  become  essentially  Flacianists.    The  pre- 


THE    BEKGIC    BOOK.  479 

ponderance  of  votes  at  Bergen  would  necessarily  favor  the  rigid 
party.  Hence  we  do  not  find  it  difficult  to  forecast  the  nature 
of  the  changes  that  shall  be  introduced  into  the  Torgau  Book 
under  the  influence  of  the  censures.  Our  difficulty  arises  from 
the  fact  that  so  late  as  the  preceding  June  these  six  Bergic 
Fathers  had  declared  of  the  Torgau  Book  under  their  own  sig- 
natures that  "this  present  explanation  of  the  controverted  ar- 
ticles, and  no  other,  is- our  faith,  doctrine  and  confession,  in 
which,  by  God 's  grace  and  with  undismayed  heart,  we  will  stand 
before  the  judgment  throne  of  Christ  and  render  an  account. ' '  * 

But  did  the  Bergic  Fathers,  as  Selneccer  himself  calls  them, 
introduce  material  changes  into  the  Torgau  Book  at  Bergen? 
Let  us  hear  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  themselves,  and  learn 
the  opinions  of  historians  amply  qualified  to  judge  in  the  pre- 
mises : 

1.  Selneccer  says  that  "the  six  theologians  were  brought  to 
Bergen  for  the  purpose  of  reading  the  opinions,  and  that  their 
instruction  was  only  to  acquaint  themselves  with  the  censures, 
and  to  change  nothing  in  sense,  since  in  that  they  were  perfectly 
agreed,  though  they  sometimes  added  little  words  and  useful 


'fc&^ 


Chemnitz  wrote:  "At  Bergen  the  Torgau  Book  was  merely 
illustrated  and  improved.  The  substance  of  doctrine  remained 
unchanged. "  i 

Chytraeus  writes  in  May.  1581:  "In  many  respects  I  also 
prefer  the  Torgau  Book  to  the  Bergic.  It  was  first  changed  by 
the  triumvirate,  Jacob,  Selneccer  and  Chemnitz,  in  the  month 
of  March,  when  I  was  not  present.  Afterwards,  in  the  month 
of  June  [he  means  IVIay],  we  other  three  were  also  called  pro 
forma  when  everything  had  been  already  transacted.  Yet,  what 
I  have  once  signed  I  neither  may  nor  will  retract."  §  And  in 
1591  he  Avrote:  "Of  all  that  was  said,  done  or  written  by  me, 
not  one  thing  was  approved  by  Jacob  Andreae.  our  Aristarchus. 
'Thus  not  a  word  written  by  me  is  found  in  the  Book  of  Concord. 
Hence  I  cannot  justly  be  counted  among  the  authors  of  it,  but 
among  the  subscribers.  Yet  what  I  have  once  subscribed  I  have 
never  retracted."  I[ 

Also  in  the  year  1582  Chytraeus  wrote:     "In  the  explication 

"  Seniler,   Torgauisches  Bnch,  p.   322. 

t  Recitationes,  p.  63. 

t  Quoted  from  Planek,  YI.,  547.  note  25. 

S  Episfolae,  p.   418. 

[j  Episfolae.  p.  873. 


480  THE    BERGIf    BOOK. 

of  the  controversies  I  desired  that  in  many  parts  the  Torgau 
Formula  be  retained,  rather  than  that  it  be  changed  at  Bergen." 
And  also  in  the  same  epistle  :  ' '  Oh,  that  this  arena  for  speciously 
declaiming  against  ubiquity  had  not  been  opened  to  the  adver- 
saries by  inserting  into  the  Book  of  Concord  certain  passages 
from  Luther!  These,  you  yourself  remember,  did  not  exist  in 
the  Torgau  original."* 

Otto  Frid.  Schiitz  writes:  "Not  in  little  words  only  was  the 
Torgau  Book  changed.  But  entire  sentences  and  clauses  were 
now  inserted  and  now  removed,  as  seemed  good  to  the  theo- 
logians. ' '  t 

J.  Gr.  Walch  writes :  "It  cannot  be  denied  that  not  only 
words  and  phrases,  but  also  entire  sentences  were  now  added 
and  now  taken  away. ' '  t 

Rehtmeyer:  "But  in  the  Book  composed  by  them  at  Tor- 
gau they  had  to  make  decided  changes  by  subtracting  and  by 
adding  after  that  they  had  been  reminded  of  this  and  of  that 
by  the  censures."  ^ 

2.  A  comparison  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  with  the  Torgau 
Book  proves  beyond  all  question  that  the  changes  introduced 
into  the  Formula  at  Bergen  are  material,  and  that  they  do  ma- 
terially affect  the  doctrine,  especially  in  the  Article  on  Free- 
will, and  in  that  on  the  Lord's  Supper.  In  The  Swabian-Saxon 
Concordia,  which  in  its  final  form,  be  it  remembered,  is  almost 
entirely  the  work  of  Chemnitz  and  Chytraeus,  it  is  said:  "We 
must  remember  here  that  God  works  upon  the  understanding 
and  will  of  man  whom  he  converts  in  no  sense  as  upon  a  stone 
or  a  block  (which  knows,  feels  and  wills  nothing  about  it),  nor 
does  he  utterly  destroy  the  substance  and  essence  of  body,  soul 
and  heart  of  the  old  man."  .  (Pfaff,  p.  497.)  This  is  retained 
word  for  word  in  the  Torgau  Book  (Semler,  p.  79),  and  it  is 
further  affirmed  that  "the  will  of  man  is  not  entirely  like  a 
stone  and  a  block."  (Pfaff,  p.  498.)  In  the  Bergic  Book  this, 
is  changed,  both  in  form  and  in  essence,  since  it  is  declared  that 
' '  conversion  to  God  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  alone,  who  is 
the  true  author  and  who  alone  works  this  in  us.  .  .  .  The  un- 
derstanding and  the  will  of  the  unregenerate  are  nothing  else 

*  Epistolae,  pp.  1198,  1199.  This  letter  was  written  to  the  Helmstadt 
theologians,  Tilemann  Heshuss  and  Daniel  Hofniann. 

t  Vita  D.  Chytraei,  p.  418. 

t  Introductio,  p.  720. 

§  Braunschiceig  KircTie n-Uistorie .  III.,  4.56.  See,  to  the  same  effect, 
Planck,  VI.,  547;  Arnold,  Unparteyische  Kirchen-Historie,  II.,  XVI.,  Cap. 
18,  §  17;  Balthaser,  I.,  24;  Gieseler,  IV..  486,  note  24. 


THE    BKRGIC    ROOK.  481 

than  the  subjectum  convertendum.  ...  In  this  conversiou 
the  will  of  man,  the  subject  of  conversion,  does  nothing  but 
merely  suffers  God  to  operate  in  it  until  it  is  regenerated. "  "As 
already  declared,  man  in  his  conversion  does  absolutely  nothing, 
and  in  this  case  he  is  much  worse  than  a  stone  and  a  block:  for 
he  resists  the  Word  and  Will  of  God.  until  God  wakes  him 
from  the  dead,  illumines  and  renews  him"    (^liiller,  p.   602). 

In  the  Swahian-Saxon  Concordia,  and  in  the  Torgau  Book,, 
the  ]\Ielanchthonian  formulae:  "In  conversion  the  will  of  man 
is  not  inactive,  but  does  something:  likewise  God  draws,  but 
draws  him  who  is  willing. ' '  *  are  explained  as  follows :  ' '  This 
is  not  to  be  understood  of  the  natural  unconverted  will  of  man. 
as  if  the  will  of  man  before  his  conversion  has  of  itself  so  mu.ch 
power  that  before  the  heginning  of  his  conversion  it  can  cooper- 
ate, for  it  is  dead  unto  the  good;  but  of  the  will  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  through  the  Word  has  begun  to  convert  and  to  renew." 
(Heppe,  p.  67;  italics  ours).  In  the  Bergic  Book  the  first  of  , 
these  formulae  given  above  is  called  a  scholastic  and  papistical 
statement;  and  of  the  two  together  and  of  Basil's  dictum: 
"tantum  veils  et  Dens  praeoccurif,"  it  is  declared:  "Since  such 
expressions  are  introduced  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  grace 
of  God,  for  the  confirmation  of  the  false  opinion  respecting  the 
powers  of  man's  Free-will  in  his  conversion,  it  is  manifest  from 
the  foregoing  explanation,  that  they  are  not  in  harmonj'  with 
sound  doctrine,  but  are  opposed  to  it:  consequently  they  are 
properly  to  be  avoided  when  w^e  treat  of  conversion  to  God. 

"For  the  conversion  of  our  depraved  will  to  God  (which,  in- 
deed, is  nothing  else  than  the  resurrection  of  the  same  from 
spiritual  death)  is  absolutely  the  work  of  God  alone,  as  also  the 
resuscitation  in  the  bodily  resurrection  of  the  flesh  must  be  at- 
tributed to  God  alone,  as  already  it  has  been  clearly  explained 
and  has  been  proved  by  sure  testimonies  of  the  Holy  Scripture" 
(Miiller,  pp.  608-9).  Here  there  is  not  only  difference,  but 
direct  contradiction  between  the  Torgau  Book  and  the  Bergic 
Book.  Besides,  there  is  nothing  whatever  in  the  Torgau  Book 
to  correspond  to  the  last  paragraph  quoted  from  the  Bergic 
Book,  nor  to  the  one  following  it  in  the  Bergic  Book.t 

In  the  Swabian-Sd.ron  Concordia  (Pfaff'.  498-9.  and  in  the 
Torgau  Book  (Semler,  p.  81)  it  is  said:  "This  explanation 
shows  plainly  enough  that  also  in  conversion   there  is  a  very 

*  Heppe,  Text  der  Bergischen  Concordienfonnel,  p.  67;   Semler,  96-7. 
t  Heppe,   ni  siipro.   \>.  67:    Semler.  p.   97. 

81 


482  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

great  difference  between  the  will  of  man  and  a  stone  or  a 
block. ' '  *  This  does  not  appear  in  the  Bergic  Book.  Also  in 
The  Swaiian-Saxon  Concordia  it  is  distinctly  said  that  in  con- 
version man  ''gives  consent"  (Jawort)  to  the  preached  Word 
(Pfaff,  p.  496).  In  the  Torgau  Book  the  doctrine  of  the  three 
causes  of  conversion  is  retained.  But  they  must  be  rightly  and 
properly  explained  (Heppe,  p.  68).  In  the  Bergic  Book  it  is 
declared  that  "in  conversion  man  does  nothing,  works  nothing, 
but  only  suffers,"  and  in  regard  to  the  three  causes  operating 
in  conversion,  it  is  said:  "Also,  since  the  youth  have  been 
greatly  disturbed  in  the  schools  about  the  three  causes  concurring 
in  the  conversion  of  a  regenerate  person,  and  since  it  has  been 
a  matter  of  dispute  as  to  how  these  (namely,  the  Word  preached 
and  heard,  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  will  of  man)  concur,  Ave  wish 
it  to  be  repeated,  in  accordance  with  the  explanation  given  above, 
that  conversion  to  God  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  alone,  who 
alone  is  that  splendid  workman  who  effects  those  things  in  us. 
Nevertheless,  he  uses  the  preaching  and  the  hearing  of  his  Holy 
Word  as  his  ordinary  and  legitimate  instrument.  But  the  un- 
derstanding and  will  of  the  man  not  yet  regenerated  are  only 
siibjectuin  convertendum,  for  they  are  the  understanding  and 
will  of  man  spiritually  dead,  in  which  man  the  Holy  Spirit 
works  conversion  and  regeneration.  To  this  work  of  converting 
man  the  will  contributes  nothing,  but  suffers  God  to  work  in  it 
until  it  is  regenerated"  (INIiiller,  p.  610).  In  the  Torgau  Book 
it  is  said  that  there  can  be  no  conversion  where  "the  person  does 
not  wholly  believe  the  promise  and  does  not  accommodate  him- 
self to  grace"  (Semler,  p.  94;  Heppe,  p.  65).  This  is  exchanged 
for:  "Is  not  made  susceptible  to  grace  by  God"  (Miiller,  p. 
608).  In  the  Torgau  Book  the  passage:  "Conversion  is  such  a 
change  in  the  understanding,  will  and  heart  of  man  by  the 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  that  the  man  wills  and  can  assent 
to  and  believe  the  Word,  follow  the  Holy  Spirit,  hold,  apply 
and  accommodate  himself  to  grace"  (Semler,  p.  94;  Heppe,  p. 
65),  is  exchanged  for:  "Conversion  is  such  a  change  in  the 
understanding,  will  and  heart  of  man  by  the  operation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  that  the  man  through  such .  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  can  accept  the  proffered  grace"  (]\Iiiller,  p.  608). 

These  comparisons  of  related  passages,  taken  from  the  two 
books,   prove   beyond   all   question   that   the   Bergic   Fathers  in 
transforming  the  one  book  into  the  other  did  make  such  changes 
*  Heppe,  ut  supra,  p.  58. 


THE    BERGIC    BOOK.  483 

in  the  Article  of  Free-will  as  do  materially  affect  the  doctrine. 
But  if  the  reader  will  follow  the  two  texts  as  exhibited  by 
Heppe  in  his  Der  Text  cler  Bcrgischen  Concordienformel  (pp. 
28-76)  with  diplomatic  accuracy,  he  Avill  discover  that  the  Ar- 
ticle on  Free-will  in  the  Torgau  Book  was  to  a  large  extent  re- 
written for  the  Bergic  Book,  and  that  the  standpoint  of  the 
article,  and  its  meaning,  in  more  places  than  our  comparisons 
show,  were  changed.  Hence,  should  we  confine  ourselves  to  this 
one  article,  we  would  have  before  us  documentary  refutation 
of  the  statements  made  by  Selneccer  and  Chemnitz,  that  the 
Torgau  Book  was  changed  at  Bergen  only  in  the  addition  of 
"little  words  and  useful  suggestions,"  and  in  matters  of  illus- 
tration.* 

And  when  we  turn  to  other  articles  we  find  that  significant 
changes  were  made.  We  have  already  quoted  from  Chytraeus 
in  regard  to  the  introduction  of  passages  into  the  Bergic  Book 
from  Luther's  writings,  which  gave  occasion  for  disputes  in  re- 
gard to  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity.  The  Swabian  doctrine  of 
ubiquity  is  brought  out  very  distinctly  in  the  Epitome,  wherein 
it  is  declared  that  Christ  as  man  is  present  to  all  creatures;  and 
though  the  Epitome  was  primarily  the  work  of  Andreae,  yet  it 
was  sanctioned  at  Bergen  and  declared  to  be  in  accord  with  the 
fuller  declaration,  that  is,  in  reality,  it  exhibits  the  meaning  of 
the  Bergic  Book.  Now,  turning  to  Heppe 's  texts,  we  find  that 
in  this  Article  VIII.  not  a  little  has  been  stricken  out  of  the 
Torgau  Book ;  and  that  not  a  little  has  been  introduced  into  the 
Bergic  Book,  which  is  not  in  the  Torgau  Book,  as,  for  instance, 
the  two  quotations  from  the  Greater  Confession  on  the  Lord's 
Shipper,  and  in  the  two  from  The  Councils  of  the  Church  (Miil- 
ler,  862-864).  Also  the  larger  part  of  the  quotation  (Miiller, 
692-693)  from  the  Greater  Confession,  is  an  addition. 

Chytraeus  also  tells  us  that  many  things  were  inserted  in  the 
Bergic  Book  from  the  writings  of  Luther,  "both  in  regard  to 
the  fundamental  basis  of  the  presence  and  in  regard  to  the 
diverse  modes  of  the  bodily  presence."  f  It  is  probable  that  this 
allegation  has  reference,  in  part,  to  the  additions  made  to  Ar- 
ticle VIII. ;  nevertheless,  important  changes  were  made  in  Arti- 

*  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  Bergic  Book  is  slightly  shorter  tlian  the  Torgau 
Book.  Not  a  little  was  dropped  from  Article  II.,  near  the  beginning;  and 
Article  IX.:  The  Descensus  ad  Inferos  is  probably  not  one-tenth  as  long  in 
the  Bergic  Book  as  it  was  in  the  Torgau  Book.  Semler,  p.  261  j  Heppe, 
p.  178. 

t  EpistoJae,  p.  109. 


484  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

cle  VII.,  so  that  the  Xiirnbergers,  who  cannot  be  suspected  of 
Crypto-Calvinism  in  any  sense,  declared  to  the  Elector  of  Sax- 
ony: "In  the  Article  of  the  Supper  those  things  which  had 
been  well  determined  in  the  Torgau  Formula  are  corrupted  in 
the  Bergic  Concordia."* 

In  the  other  articles  changes  were  made,  not  all  of  which  are 
insignificant  and  limited  to  a  few  little  words  or  to  the  matter 
of  illustration,  though  they  are  formal  rather  than  material. 
It  is  the  changes  made  in  Articles  II.,  VII.  and  VIII.,  essentially 
in  conformity  to  the  Prussian  censure,  that  have  determined 
the  character  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  its  doctrinal  quali- 
ties; that  made  it  Lutherisli.-f  rather  than  Lutheran:  that  have 
shaped  the  course  of  its  adherents  and  subscribers  in  the  direc- 
tion of  Lutherism,  rather  than  given  them  the  broader  concep- 
tion of  Lutheranism. 

That  the  question  of  Free-will  was  settled  essentially  in  the 
sense  of  Flacius  is  conceded  by  the  most  competent  Lutheran 
scholars  of  a  former  generation. t  Equally  candid  are  scholars 
of  the  present  generation.  Kawerau,  after  giving  a  brief  account 
of  the  composition  of  the  Torgau  Book  and  of  its  transmission 
to  the  Estates  for  their  censures,  says:  "With  these  censures 
in  view,  there  now  followed  in  the  cloister  of  Bergen  near  INIag- 
deburg  (March  to  IMay,  1577)  the  final  revision  by  Andreae. 
Chemnitz  and  Selneccer,  with  whom  also  were  associated  Chy- 
traeus,  Koerner  and  Musculus:  The  Bergic  Book.  This  is  the 
Solid  Declaration  of  the  Formula  of  Concord.  At  the  same 
time  the  theologians  also  revised  the  brief  abstract  (the  Epi- 
tome) that  had  in  the  meantime  been  prepared  by  Andreae,  and 
approved  it.  The  Bergic  Book  eliminated  still  more  decidedly 
[than  the  Torgau  Book]  the  traces  of  the  Melanchthonian  teach- 
ing, which  still  remained  in  the  Swabian-Saxon  Concordia,  yea, 
even  in  the  Torgau  Book,  as  a  reminder  of  the  fact  that  Chem- 
nitz, Selneccer  and  Chytraeus  had  proceeded  from  the  school  of 
Melanchthon.  They  had  also  nearly  admitted  synergistic  views, 
and  at  least  Selneccer  and  Chemnitz  represented  that  mediating 
view  on  Ubiquity.  But  the  result  of  the  continuous  develop- 
ment on  the  dogmatic  course  marked  out  under  the  essential 
cooperation  of  ^Melanchthon  gave  the  preponderance  to  the  rigid 

*  Hospinian,  Cap.  XV.  8ee,  on  tlio  same  page,  the  reasons  given  why  the 
Niirnbergers  cannot  approve  the  Bergic  Book. 

t  The  Germans,  in  speaking,  make  a  nice  distinction  by  accent:  Lulherisch 
is  Lutherish  ;  Lntherisch  is  Lutheran. 

ij:  The  Lvtlunni  Quart cdii,  ,luly.  UXtf).  p.  187,  note. 


THE    BERGIC    BOOK.  485 

Luther  conception,  though,  undoubtedly,  Ubiquity  Avas  not  ex- 
pressed in  the  absolute  sense  of  the  Wiirtembergers. ' '  * 

And  to  the  same  effect  also  Dr.  Karl  Miiller:  "August  called 
Andreae,  Chemnitz  and  Selneccer,  also  Chji;raeus,  and  the  Bran- 
denburg theologians,  Musculus  and  Koerner,  to  a  second  con- 
ference in  the  cloister  of  Bergen  (March  and  May,  1577),  to 
consider  the  censures  that  had  come  in,  and  thereupon  to  revise 
the  Concordia.  The  result  was  the  Bergic  Book.  Externally  it 
consists  of  two  parts,  that  is,  of  a  second,  though  somewhat  re- 
duced, revision  of  the  Torgau  Book  and  of  a  brief  abstract  from 
it.  But  in  its  inner  content  it  presents  a  manifestly  farther  ad- 
vance in  the  direction  of  the  rigid  Lutheranism.  In  the  elimi- 
nation of  the  Philippistic  elements  and  in  opposition  to  Melanch- 
thon,  under  the  direction  of  Andreae,  a  still  further  significant 
step  was  taken.  Only  in  the  positive  rejection  of  Melanchthon 's 
writings  and  in  the  demand  for  recantation  on  the  part  of  the 
former  Philippists,  nobody's  wishes  were  gratified  in  regard  to 
such  matters.  In  reference  to  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  and  his 
older  compositions  the  censures,  with  the  exception  of  those  of 
the  real  Philippists,  had  shown  an  almost  complete  agreement. 
Consequently,  the  writings  which  had  been  continuously  pro- 
posed in  the  last  transactions  were  received  into  the  final  plan, 
and  to  these  was  added  the  Bergic  Book. "  y  Loofs  expresses  him- 
self in  about  the  same  way,  namely,  that  the  first  and  second 
articles  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  "settled  the  s\Tiergistic 
question  in  the  sense  of  the  Gnesio-Lutherans,"  and  that  "an 
aggressive  Luther  tradition  is  followed,"  and  that  "in  not  a  few 
passages  the  Swabian  view  seems  to  be  dogmatically  stated"  in 
the  Article  on  the  Person  of  Christ. t  Kurtz  expresses  himself 
in  about  the  same  way  as  to  the  characteristics  of  the  Bergic 
Book.  He  says:  "This  document  dealt  with  all  the  contro- 
verted questions  that  had  been  agitated  since  A.  D.  1530  in 
twelve  articles.  It  set  forth  the  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
giving  prominence  to  the  theory  of  ubiquity  as  the  basis  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Supper,  leaving  it,  however,  undetermined  in 
accordance  with  the  teaching  of  Brentz,  whether  the  ubiquity 
is  to  be  regarded  as  an  absolute  or  as  a  relative  one,  if  only  it 
be  maintained  that  Christ  in  respect  of  his  human  nature,  there- 
fore in  respect  of  his  body,  is  present  '  ulicunque  velit,'  more 

*  Moller-Ka^erau,    KircJiengescMcMe,    3.    Ed.,    III.,    29.3. 
t  Preussische  Jahrhiicher,  1889,  63  Vol.,  p.  142. 
t  Dogmengeschichte,  4  Ed.,  91-5,  920,  922. 


486  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

particularly  in  the  Holy  Supper.  An  opportunity  was  also 
found,  in  treating  of  the  synergistic  questions,  to  set  forth  the 
doctrina  of  predestination,  although  within  the  Lutheran  Church 
no  real  controversy  on  this  subject  had  ever  arisen.  Luther,  who 
at  first  had  himself  given  expression  to  a  particularistic  doctrine 
of  election,  had  gradually  receded  from  that  position.  .  .  . 
When  now  the  Formula  of  Concord,  rejecting  synergism  in  the 
most  decided  manner,  affirmed  that  since  the  Fall  there  was  in 
men  not  even  a  spark  remaining,  ne  scintillula  quidem,  of  spir- 
itual power  for  the  independent,  free  appropriation  of  offered 
grace,  it  had  gone  over  from  the  platform  of  Melanchthon  to 
that  which  Calvin,  following  the  course  of  hard,  logical  consist- 
ency, had  been  driven  to  adopt,  in  the  assertion  of  a  doctrine  of 
absolute  predestination.  The  Formula  was  thus,  in  the  main,  in 
agreement  with  the  speculation  of  Calvin.  But  it  declined  to 
accept  the  conclusions  arrived  at  in  Calvinism  by- declaring  that, 
while  man  indeed  of  himself  wanted  the  power  to  lay  hold  upon 
divine  grace  and  to  cooperate  with  it  in  any  way,  he  was  yet 
able  to  withstand  it  and  to  refuse  to  accept  it.  In  this  way  it 
was  able  to  hold  by  the  express  statements  of  Scripture,  which 
represent  God  as  willing  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  and  salva- 
'tion  as  an  absolute  work  of  grace,  but  condemnation  as  the  con- 
sequence of  man's  own  guilt.  It  regards  the  salvation  of  men  as 
the  only  object  of  Divine  Predestination,  condemnation  as  the 
consequence  of  the  divine  foreknowledge. ' '  * 

Now,  it  is  exactly  this  extreme  development  that  has  brought 
the  Formula  of  Concord  into  inconsistency  with  the  older  Luth- 
eran Confessions,  and  even  with  itself.  Melanchthon  purposely 
kept  the  doctrine  of  Predestination  out  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, because  of  the  inextricable  controversies  to  which  it 
would  lead.t 

The  doctrine  of  Free-will,  contained  in  Article  II.  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  cannot  be  logically  deduced  from  Article 
XVIII.  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  nor  from  the  discussions 
of  the  same  subject  in  the  Apology.  It  is  not  the  old  Lutheran 
doctrine  of  Free-will. t  It  is  not  the  earlier  teaching  of  Andreae, 
Chemnitz,  Selneccer  and  Chytraeus  on  the  subject,  as  witness 
their  private  writings  and  the  Torgau  Book.     It  is  essentially 

*  Church  Hifttoni,  §  141,  12. 
t  C.  K.  II.,  547. 

't  See  The  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  A]>y\\,  .Inly  and  October,  1905,  Article: 
The  Old  Lutheran  Doctrine  of  Free-irill. 


THE    BERGIC    BOOK.  487 

the  teaching  of  Flaeius,  and  harmonizes  well  with  the  demands 
made  in  the  Prussian  censure.  Hence  it  is  not  possible  to  recon- 
cile the  doctrine  of  Free-will  contained  in  Article  II.  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord  with  the  doctrine  on  the  same  subject  con- 
tained in  the  older  confessions  without  reading  something  into 
the  conclusion  that  is  not  contained  in  the  premises  of  the  older 
confessions. 

And  a  similar  difficulty  arises  in  regard  to  Article  II.  and 
Article  XI.  in  the  Formula  of  Concord.  In  Article  II.  it  is 
taught  that  man  is  like  a  block,  a  stone,  yea,  even  worse  than 
these,  that  "in  conversion  man  is  absolutely  passive,"  and  that 
"conversion  is  the  work  of  God  alone." 

The  logical  conclusion  from  all  this  is  the  doctrine  of  absolute 
predestination  and  the  doctrine  of  irresistible  grace.  It  rests 
with  God  whether  a  man  is  converted  or  not.  Not  all  men  are 
converted ;  therefore  it  is  not  the  will  of  God  that  all  men  shall 
be  converted,  or  that  the  promise  of  salvation  should  appertain 
to  all  men.  But  in  Article  XI.  it  is  said  "that  not  only  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  but  also  the  promise  of  the  Gospel  is 
universal,  that  is,  appertains  to  all  men"  (Miiller,  p.  709).  Also, 
it  is  declared  in  the  Formula  "that  God  has  ordained  by  his 
eternal  counsel  that  the  Holy  Spirit  shall  call  the  elect,  illumine, 
convert,  and  justify  all  those  who  with  true  faith  embrace  (Ger- 
man: annehmen:  Latin,  amplector)  Christ  and  will  confer  on 
them  eternal  life"  (Miiller,  712-713). 

But  embracing  is  an  action  of  the  will.  It  is  a  choice.  The 
person  who  embraces  is  not  "absolutely  passive,"  is  not  a  block 
or  a  stone.  If  this  embracing,  or  this  choosing  to  embrace,  or 
the  power  to  embrace,  be  wrought  in  some  who  hear  the  Gospel, 
and  not  in  others  who  hear  it,  then  we  have  particularistic  elec- 
tion. If  man,  under  the  "preaching  of  repentance,"  and  with 
that  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  the  Lutheran  theol- 
ogy teaches,  always  accompanies  the  preaching  of  the  Divine 
Word,  can  "embrace  Christ  by  true  faith,"  then  it  was  wrong 
to  say  "that  the  unregenerate  man  cannot  apply  himself  to 
grace,"  for  regeneration  does  not  come  before  justification, 
neither  does  it  come  before  repentance,  nor  before  embracing 
Christ  by  true  faith.  Hence,  Kurtz  is  right  in  saying  that  the 
Formula  went  over  to  the  platform  of  Calvin.  That  it  does  not 
draw  the  conclusions  that  were  drawn  by  Calvin  results  from  the 
want  of  "logical  consistency,"  or  from  a  failure  to  draw  the 
conclusions  involved  in  the  premises. 


k^ 


488  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

Candid  Lutherans  have  recognized  the  dilemma  in  which  the 
Formula  of  Concord  involves  itself.  ]\Iartensen  says  that  the 
Lutheran  theory  has  taken  an  unfortunate  turn,  and  that  its 
"formula  involves  a  return  to  Calvinism.  Freedom  of  choice 
is  transformed  into  a  mere  shadow,  for  whatever  is  the  subjecf 
of  foreknowledge  must  have  its  foundation  in  an  eternal  law  of 
necessity.  The  relation  in  which  the  free  choice  of  man  stands 
to  the  divine  election  of  grace  cannot  be  the  object  of  God's 
/ore-knowledge,  though  it  is  certainly  the  object  of  his  joint- 
knowledge."  *  Kahnis:  "The  second  Article,  De  Libero  Ar- 
hitrio,  rejects  synergism  to  the  behoof  of  the  rigid  Augustinian 
V^"  doctrine  of  grace  which  works  all  in  all.  On  the  contrary,  the 
eleventh  Article,  De-  Aeternitate  et  Electione,  declares  against 
the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  Predestination  in  the  Calvinistic 
sense.  .  .  .  The  proposition  that  the  rejection  of  salvation  has 
its  ground  in  man  neutralizes  not  merely  the  doctrine  of  Pre- 
destination, but  also  the  doctrine  of  grace  in  the  Formula  of 
Concord.  This  proposition  demands,  according  to  irrefutable 
logic,  that  the  man  who  can  reject  salvation  is  not  without  will 
(willenlos)  in  the  appropriation  of  salvation.  For  he  who  can 
resist  and  does  not  resist  wills  not  to  resist.  And  he  who  wills 
not  to  resist  wills  to  receive."  f  Dr.  Julius  Stahl,  after  stating 
that  "in  all  the  confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  those 
which  were  composed  by  Luther  and  in  those  which  were  com- 
posed by  ]Melanchthon,  there  is  not  even  the  trace  of  a  doctrine 
of  Predestination,"  declares  that  the  treatment  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  on  the  doctrines  of  Free-will  and  Predestination  is 
certainly  in  need  of  better  definition  and  of  correction  (pp.  540, 
543). i  Luthardt  has  expressed  himself  thus:  "It  has  often 
been  charged  against  the  Formula  of  Concord  that  its  second 
and  eleventh  Articles  do  not  agree.  The  answer  to  the  predesti- 
nation question  is  indeed  a  fortunate  inconsequence,  but  an  in- 
consequence. The  logical  conclusion  from  Article  II.  is  the  ab- 
solute Predestination.  For  if  man  can  contribute  absolutely 
nothing  to  his  salvation,  then  the  entire  decision  in  regard  to  the 
eternal  destiny  of  individuals  lies  solely  in  the  hand  of  God. 
The  Formula  of  Concord  does  indeed  concede  to  the  natural 
man  the  ability  externally  to  hear  the  Word;  but  this  purely 

*  Cliristian  Dogmatics,  p.  367. 

j  Dogmatil-.  II.,  543. 

t  Die  Lutlierische  Kirche  unci  die  Union,  pp.  -217-218. 


THE    BERGIC    BOOK.  489 

external  act  is  without  real  moral  significance.  The  whole  weight 
of  eternity  cannot  hang  on  this  slender  thread. ' '  * 

Thomasius  thinks  that  we  have  in  the  Formula  of  Concord 
antithetical  propositions,  which  we  are  not  required  to  carry- 
out  logically.  But  against  this  it  may  be  said  that  it  does  not 
belong  to  a  confession  to  state  its  propositions  antithetically,  nor 
to  seek  to  reconcile  truths  that  stand  over  against  each  other,  nor 
to  state  truths  that  stand  over  against  each  other  in  such  a  way 
that  the  one  logically  carried  out  contradicts  the  other.  For 
such  a  procedure  produces  not  so  much  a  confession  of  faith 
as  a  discussion  of  dogma,  and  such  is  exactly  the  way  in  which 
competent  Lutheran  scholars  have  characterized  the  Formula  of 
Concord:  "In  it  [the  F.  C]  one  cannot  miss  the  warm  pulse- 
beat  of  a  direct  confession,  and  that  could  not  be  otherwise,  for 
its  purpose  is  to  render  doctrinal  decisions,  and  hence  it  is  a 
treatise  on  dogma,  rather  than  a  confession.  But  despite  its 
undeniable  incongruities,  and  regardless  of  the  attitude  one 
takes  toward  it,  as  a  treatise  on  dogma  it  must  be  regarded  as 
one  of  the  most  important  achievements  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury."! 

But  one  may  ask  whether  a  treatise  on  dogma,  Avrought  out 
under  the  conceptions  of  the  Aristotelian  philosophy,  and  by 
the  aid  of  the  scholastic  terms  that  still  abounded  in  the  theology 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  has  the  proper  qualities  for  a  binding 
confession  of  faith  in  the  twentieth  century.  Besides,  a  treatise 
on  dogma,  composed  for  the  purpose  of  settling  theological  con- 
troversies, is  one  thing,  and  has  its  own  definite  end  in  view.  A 
confession  of  faith  composed  for  the  purpose  of  Avitnessing  to 
what  is  believed  and  taught  in  our  churches  is  quite  another 
thing,  and  has  its  definite  end  in  view.  As  a  treatise  on  theo- 
logical dogma,  the  Formula  of  Concord  must  be  rated  very  high. 
Some  of  its  expositions  are  most  thoughtful  and  judicious.  No 
theologian  can  afford  to  ignore  it.  Every  Lutheran  theologian 
ought  to  appreciate  it  as  showing  how  certain  theologians  at  a 
certain  period  in  the  history  of  the  Church  were  brought,  under 
certain  circumstances,  to  express  themselves  concerning  certain 
articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  But  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord can  be  no  more  regarded  as  the  final  explanation  of  any 
article  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  than  Luther's  Commentary 

'  Die  Lelire  vom  Freien  Willen,  p.  276. 

t  Kolde,  Einleifung,  p.  Ixxiii.  See  an  excellent  characterization  of  the 
Formula  in  the  Moller-Kawerau  Kirchengeschichte,  3cl  Ed.,  III.,  p.  293. 


490  THE    BERGIC    BOOK. 

on  Galatians  can  be  regarded  as  the  final  exposition  of  the  great 
Apostle's  masterpiece  on  justification  by  faith.  The  Formula 
of  Concord  is  a  historical  document,  and  consequently  it  must 
be  judged  historically.  If  the  history  of  the  world  be  the  judg- 
ment of  the  world,  equally  is  the  history  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord  the  judgment  of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

SUBSCRIPTIOX   TO   THE    FORMULA   OF    CONCORD. 

The  Bergic  Fathers  regarded  their  second  revision  of  the 
Torgau  Book  as  final.*  There  was  to  be  no  opportunity  for 
criticism,  and  no  appeal  from  its  explanation  of  the  contro- 
verted articles.  Hence  they  named  it :  A  Final  Repetition  and 
Explanation,  etc.  They  counsel  against  holding  a  general 
synod,  about  which,  both  privately  and  officially,  they  had 
previously  written.  They  now  fear  that  dangerous  opposition 
would  be  developed  in  a  synod,  and  that  the  work  of  concord 
would  be  defeated.  So  they  express  themselves  in  their  Report 
to  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  done  at  Bergen,  May  28,  1577.  The 
Elector  of  Saxony  was  greatly  pleased  with  the  counsel,  and  at 
once  began  to  procure  the  subscriptions  of  the  theologians,  super- 
intendents and  pastors  in  Saxony.  The  Elector  of  Branden- 
burg expressed  himself  emphatically  against  holding  a  synod, 
and  expressed  himself  in  favor  of  procuring  the  subscriptions  as 
speedily  and  as  unceremoniously  as  possible.  Hence  he  advises 
"that  a  copy  (of  the  Bergic  Book),  as  it  has  now  been  deter- 
mined (confirmirt)  according  to  the  censures  of  the  churches, 
be  sent  again  to  the  Princes,  and  that  subscriptions  to  it  be 
categorically  demanded  and  taken ;  and  further,  that  the  same 
shall  be  demanded  of  courts  and  cities  by  some  neighboring 
Princes.  When  this  shall  have  been  done  a  s^Tiod  can  be  better 
and  more  safely  thought  of,  in  which  the  other  articles  can 
be  fully  discussed."  f 

Now  it  was  in  the  spirit  of  these  counsels  that  the  work  of 
obtaining  subscriptions  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  con- 
ducted. The  Electors,  respeetiveh^  of  Saxony  and  Brandenburg, 
were  essentially  of  one  mind  on  the  subject.  They  sent  copies 
of  the  Bergic  Book  with  their  benedictions  to  the  Princes,  with 
the  request  that  they  should  multiply  copies  and  send  them 
to  counts,  lords  and  cities  for  subscription.  They  were  to  re- 
quire subscription,  first  from  the  doctors  of  theology  and  the 
<»onsistorial  theologians,  and  then  from  superintendents,  pastors 

*  Chemnitz's  Letter:  Bertram,  Das  Evcuigelische  Lilneburg,  II.,  Beylagen, 
p.  365. 

t  Bertram,  Das  Evang.  Liinelnirg,  Beylagen,  II.  Theil,  pp.  GS;!,  63. 

(491) 


492  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD. 

and  teachers  of  each  place.  The  names  of  those  who  refused  to 
subscribe  were  to  be  placed  in  a  catalogue,  which  was  to  be  sent 
to  the  Electors  that  they  might  know  who  were  suspected  and 
heterodox. 

It  was  thought  that  the  demand  for  subscription  would  meet 
with  little  or  no  resistance  in  Saxony  and  Brandenburg.  And  so 
it  turned  out  in  the  main.  The  will  of  such  despotic  Princes  as 
August  and  John  George  was  law,  though  many  objections  were 
raised,  especially  in  Saxony,  and  many  misgivings  had  to  be 
quieted,  and  not  a  few  persons  subscribed  with  a  bad  conscience. 
As  the  matter  of  subscription  was  doubtful  in  Hesse  and  in 
Anhalt  it  was  resolved  to  send  no  copies  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord  into  those  countries,  but  to  invite  some  of  the  theolo- 
gians of  those  lands  to  a  colloquy  with  the  theologians  of  Saxony 
and  Brandenburg.* 

Thus  subscription  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  obtained 
diplomatically,  and  not  by  proper  and  ecclesiastical  methods. 
Professor  Kolde  has  stated  the  case  accurately,  only  \vitli  refer- 
ence to  some  of  the  Princes  Avhen  he  says :  ' '  Wherever  the  civil 
authorities  were  in  favor  of  the  Formula,  there,  as  a  rule,  the 
men  of  the  Church  Avere  compliant.  That  the  wish  of  the  ruler 
contributed  to  the  result  is  not  to  be  denied,  and  is  con- 
firmed by  the  Crypto-Calvinistic  troubles  which  came  up  later 
in  Saxony.  But  that  the  influence  of  the  rulers  is  not  to  be 
too  highly  estimated,  as  very  soon  was  done  by  the  opponents  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  is  shown,  among  other  things,  by  the 
addition :  '  With  mouth  and  heart, '  that  is  frequently  found 
among  the  subscriptions."  f  Kolde  does  not  seem  to  have  taken 
into  his  account  the  fact  that  the  commissioners,  appointed  to 
procure  the  subscriptions,  were  instructed  to  make  a  catalogue 
of  the  recusants.  Professor  Karl  ]\Iiiller  has  stated  the  case  more 
comprehensively  and  better  in  accordance  with  the  facts,  when 
he  says  that  ''some  Princes  threatened  simply  to  banish  from 
the  country  everyone  who  did  not  subscribe, ' '  and  then  observes 
in  strict  harmony  with  the  facts  that  "the  Estates  had  under- 
taken the  publication;  they  subscribed  the  Preface;  they  have 
come  to  an  agreement  in  regard  to  the  controversies  of  their 
theologians;  they  enjoin  this  Concordia  upon  their  dominions, 

*  For  the  details  of  the  facts  condensed  in  this  and  in  the  preceding  par- 
agraph, see  Hospinian,  Chap.  XIX.;  Hiitter,  Chaps.  XVII.  and  XIX.; 
Anton,  pp.  214-216;  Heppe,  pp.  216-218;  Planck,  VI.,  5.53-560;  Pressel,. 
\it  supra,  pp.  38  et'seqq.;  Kolde,  Einleitung,  p.  Ixxiii. 

t  Einleitung,  p.  Ixxiii. 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO   THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  493 

churches,  schools,  successors  for  instruction  and  as  a  warning. 
The  theologians — about  eight  thousand  subscribed — appear  only 
at  the  end  of  the  entire  Book,  not'  as  legislators  or  as  partici- 
pants in  the  work  of  legislation,  but  only  as  a  sign  of  their  agree- 
ment, of  their  submission.  The  will  of  the  ruler  has  decided 
everything.  The  Estates  elevate,  each  for  its  own  dominion,  the 
new  Book  to  the  position  of  a  doctrinal  code.  Each  Estate  is 
by  its  subscription  not  a  representative  of  the  entire  Church  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  a  representative  of  its  o^^^l  terri- 
torial Church,  or  rather  of  its  own  territory.  Taken  all  together 
they  do  not  even  constitute  the  Church  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, not  even  the  'Lutheran'  half  of  it,  but  at  most  a  part, 
more  correctly  a  part  of  the  Estates  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion."* 

Of  the  Estates  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  Germany,  about 
two-thirds  subscribed  the  Formula,  the  following  refused  their 
subscription :  Brunswick.  Wolfenbiittel,  Holstein,  Hessen, 
Pomerania,  Anhalt,  the  Palatinate.  Zweibrlickeu,  Nassau,  Ben- 
theim,  Tecklenburg,  Solms,  Bremen,  Danzig,  Magdeburg,  Niirn- 
berg,  Weissenburg,  Windsheim.  Frankfurt.  Worms,  Speyer, 
Strassburg,  also  the  county  Ortenburg  and  the  Silesian  principal- 
ity Lignitz.t  Brunswick  accepted  the  Formula  at  first,  but 
afterwards  rejected  it  on  account  of  Duke  Julius'  antipathy  to 
Chemnitz.  In  Silesia  the  Lutheran  churches  had  not  been  racked 
by  the  Lutheran  controversies.  The  King  of  Denmark  threw  the 
two  elegantly  bound  copies,  sent  him  by  his  sister,  the  Electress 
of  Saxony,  into  the  fire  with  his  own  hands,  and  forbade,  under 
severe  penalty,  the  introduction  of  the  Formula  into  his  domin- 
ions.! Some  of  the  territories  and  cities  named  above,  sub- 
sequently accepted  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  some  which 
had  at  first  accepted  it  (besides  Brunswick)  rejected  it.  The 
Preface  was  signed  by  3  Electors  (Saxony,  Palatinate,  Branden- 
burg) 20  Princes.  24  Counts,  4  Barons  and  29  free  cities.^ 

1.     The  Method  of  Obtaining  Subscriptions. 
The  Elector  of  Saxony  commissioned  Jacob  Andreae,  Nicholas 
Selneccer  and  Polycarp  Lyser,  at  that  time  Superintendent  in 

*  Preussisclie  Jahrhucher,  February,  1889,  pp.  142-3. 

t  Kolde,  Etnleitung,  p.  Ixxiii.,  note;  Miiller,  Preussisclie  Jahrbilcher, 
February,  1889,  p.  143. 

±  Zeitschrift  fiir  Hist,  rheolof/ie,  1850,  p.  662;  Moller-Kawerau.  Eir- 
chengeschichte,  III.,  296. 

§  Kolrle,  Einleitung.  p.  Ixxiii. 


494  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE.  FORMULA    OF    CONCORD. 

Wittenberg,  to  eon  duet  the  matter  of  obtaining  tlie  subscriptions 
in  his  dominions.  His  letter  to  the  clergy  and  all  concerned  is  as 
follows:  "We  have  given  command  to  Dr.  Jacob  Andreae  and 
Nicholas  SeLneccer  as  to  what  they  are  to  do  and  accomplish  for 
the  advancement  of  the  salutarj^  work  of  concord  Avhich  has 
been  begun  in  these  dominions,  as  you  will  learn  from  them; 
and  it  is  our  desire  (Begehr)  that  you  will  see  to  it  that  the 
Superintendents  and  all  the  pastors,  ministers  of  the  churches 
and  school  teachers  shall  appear  without  fail  at  our  castle  in 
Wittenberg  at  six  o  'clock  in  the  morning  of  Tuesday  the  twenty- 
fifth  day  of  this  Month,"  that  is,  of  June,  1577.* 

It  was  the  requirement  of  the  Elector  that  every  pastor  should 
sign  with  his  own  hand.  The  beginning  was  made  at  Witten- 
berg. From  AVittenberg  the  commission  went  to  Hertzberg,  Tor- 
gau,  ]\Ieissen,  Dresden,  and  to  all  the  other  important  cities  in 
Electoral  and  Ducal  Saxony.  "The  procedure  in  carrying  on 
the  work  was  as  follows:  In  every  place  to  which  they  came 
they  met  the  ministers  and  school  teachers  who  had  been  sum- 
moned from  the  smaller  towns  and  villages,  and  made  an  address, 
in  which  they  related  briefly  how  their  gracious  Lord,  the 
Elector,  had  labored  for  several  years  to  remove  the  unfortunate 
schisms  and  controversies  in  the  Church,  and  how,  finally,  the 
Formula  of  Concord  had  been  composed  and  everywhere  exam- 
ined and  adequately  approved.  They  then  read  the  Formula 
and  exhorted  the  assembly  to  examine  it  with  reference  to  its 
agreement  Avith  the  Word  of  God.  They  also  requested  that 
everyone  should  express  any  doubts  or  scruples  that  he  might 
have,  in  order  that  they  might  be  removed.  They  also  demanded 
that  those  who  could  bring  nothing  against  it  should  acknowledge 
it  and  subscribe  their  names  to  it  without  reservation.  The 
demand  was  so  effective,  and  the  information  given  to  the  doubt- 
ing so  convincing  that  in  all  the  Electorate  only  one  pastor  and 
one  superintendent,  and  onlj^  one  school  teacher  in  the  Weimar 
district,  were  found  who  were  so  wilful  as  to  refuse  subscrip- 
tion."! 

Andreae  asserted  in  the  colloquy  Avith  the  Anhalt  theolo- 
gians at  Hertzberg,  in  1578 :  "I  am  able  to  say  truly  that  no  one 
was  forced  to  subscribe,  nor  Avas  any  one  banished.   This  is  as  true 

*  Pressel,  lU  supra,  p.  39.  This  order  is  dated  June  19,  1577.  Pressel, 
ut  supra,  p.  39,  note. 

t  Planck,  VI.,  5.5S-.560.  Tn  Planck  the  date  of  beginning  at  Wittenberg 
is  Jan.  15th.  Manifestly  a  typographical  error.  Anton  and  Heppe  give  June 
15th  as  the  date  of  beginning.     Pressel  draws  from  archival  sources. 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO   THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  495 

as  that  the  Son  of  God  has  redeemed  me  with  his  own  blood. ' '  * 
But  already,  October  8th  of  the  previous  year,  when  the  work 
in  Saxony  had  been  completed,  Andreae  had  written  to  Chem- 
nitz: "Ever  since  I  separated  from  you  I  have  been  away 
from  home,  that  I  might  finish  the  work  that  had  been  begun. 
It  has  succeeded  most  fortunately.  Not  only  did  we  receive 
unqualified  subscriptions,  but  we  treated  the  pastors  with  such 
severity,  that  a  very  good  sincere  minister  said  to  us  afterwards 
at  the  hotel,  that  he  was  thunderstruck  when  the  matter  was 
conducted  with  such  severity  that  he  heard  the  law  of  Moses 
promulgated  from  Sinai.  .  .  .  I  do  not  believe  that  equal 
severity  was  used  in  any  place. ' '  f  Hutter  concedes  that  ' '  some 
subscribed  with  a  bad  conscience. ' '  % 

In  Brandenburg  the  subscriptions  were  obtained  in  about  the 
same  .way  as  in  Saxony.  Andrew  Musculus,  George  Coelestin 
and  Christopher  Koerner  were  appointed  to  assemble  the 
preachers  at  convenient  places  and  to  obtain  their  subscriptions. 
Very  unimportant  objections  were  found  to  the  Formula,  and 
it  was  accepted  and  subscribed  with  thankfulness  to  the  Holy 
Trinity.  At  a  convention  held  at  Lebus,  July  22d,  the  clergy 
subscribed  unconditionally  and  also  "thanked  the  faithful,  pious 
ruler  for  his  fatherly  care  of  the  Church  which  had  been  so 
harshly  attacked  and  persecuted  by  the  sects  and  heretics.  "§ 

In  lower  Saxony  and  in  the  maritime  cities  the  work  of  ob- 
taining subscriptions  was  conducted  mainly  by  Chemnitz,  and 
that,  too,  in  large  part  at  his  own  expense.  In  this  work  he  was 
greatly  encouraged  by  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  who,  June  7,  1577, 
wrote  him  a  very  flattering  letter,  which  shows  that  the  Elector 
of  Saxony  and  the  Elector  of  Brandenburg  were  acting  in  con- 
cert to  promote  subscription  in  Brunswick,  Liineburg  and  the 
cities  on  the  sea.j|     February  15,  1578,  Chemnitz  reports  that 

'  Hutter,  Cap.  XX. 

t  Quoted  bv  Eehtmeyer,  III.,  460,  as  proof  that  "where  the  people  were 
not  willing  to  subscribe  categorically,  they  were  at  once  threatened  with 
expulsion  from  oflace. ' '     See  Zeitschrift  fur  Hist.  Theol.,  1848,  p.  285. 

t  Lihri  Christianae  ConcorcUae,  Prolegomena,  p.  20.  J.  G.  Walch,  the 
ardent  apologist  for  the  Formula  of  Concord,  writes:  "We  cannot  deny 
that  in  this  matter  there  were  not  some  human  weaknesses."  Gottfried  Ar- 
nold has  shown  from  original  documents  that,  in  instances,  the  subscrip- 
tions were  demanded,  and  that  the  ministers  had  the  alternative  of  sub- 
scribing "or  of  being  dismissed  from  office,  and  that,  at  least  to  a  large  ex- 
tent, the  Formula  of  Concord  was  forced  upon  its  subscribers.  He  who 
would  refute  Arnold  at  this  point  must  show  that  he  garbled  or  falsified  his 
authorities.  '  Unpartheyische  Eirchen-und  Ketser-Historie,  Neue  Auflage, 
I.  Tom.,  pp.  815-817. 

§  Pressel,  ut  supra,  p.  43. 

11  Letters  in  Eehtmeyer,  Beylagen,  Xos.  55,  56. 


496  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD. 

he  assembled  the  theologians  of  the  various  localities,  and  that 
the  matter  was  so  conducted  that  in  all  the  churches  "the  sub- 
scriptions followed  without  exception  unqualifiedly  and  categori- 
cally."  Only  in  Westphalia  was  there  some  hesitation.*  There 
is  no  evidence  that  threats  and  violence  were  employed  in  ob- 
taining subscriptions  in  Brunswick-Liineberg.  But  it  was  under 
the  influence  of  Duke  Julius  that  in  Oldenburg  the  subscription 
made  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  by  the  Count  was  accompanied 
with  the  declaration:  "No  one  will  be  tolerated  in  the  country 
who  shall  speak,  write  or  do  anything  against  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  "t  and  in  the  dominion  of  Duke  Julius,  at  the  Rid- 
dagshausen  Convention,  1576,  before  the  signing  of  the  Formula, 
it  was  decided,  "that  no  minister,  no  teacher  of  the  Church, 
shall  be  received  or  tolerated,  who.  either  in  thesis  or  in  anti- 
thesis, shall  preach,  write,  dispute,  speak  or  dictate  anything 
contrary  to  the  Fonnula  of  Concord,  or  shall  countenance  the 
errors  and  corruptions  which  have  been  rejected,  or  shall  gloss, 
defend  or  cloak  the  same. "  j 

In  Wiirtemberg  subscriptions  were  obtained  in  July,  August, 
September  and  October.  Duke  Ludwig  issued  a  proclamation 
in  which  he  calls  attention  to  the  many  controversies  that  had 
sprung  up  among  the  theologians  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
and  to  the  efforts  of  Electors  and  Princes  to  remove  the  same. 
He  then  says  that  "the  Formula  of  Concord  has  been  already 
subscribed  by  all  theologians,  ministers  and  teachers  of  the 
Church  in  the  two  Electorates,  and  in  other  Electorates  and 
principalities,  and  in  the  other  Estates  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession subscription  is  going  on.  and  the  Electors  of  Saxony 
and  Brandenburg  have  graciously  desired  of  us  that  we  also 
have  the  above-named  writings  subscribed  in  our  dominions  by 
all  our  theologians,  ministers  and  teachers  as  an  evidence  of 
Christian  consensus:  Therefore  it  is  our  gracious  command 
(gnadiger  Befehl)  that  ye  will  read  the  writings  herewith  trans- 
mitted and  subscribe  both  copies  with  your  own  hands  without 
supplement  or  condition  in  such  a  way  that  everyone  indicates 
his  baptismal  name  and  his  surname  and  the  office  and  place  in 
which  he  serves  in  Church  or  in  school."  The  work  of  calling 
the  ministers  together  and  of  obtaining  the  subscriptions  was 
entrusted  to  Dr.   Luke   Osiander  and   Hippolitus   Resch.      The 

*  Pressel,  ut  supra,  pp.  44,  45 ;  Lentz,  Zeitschrift  fur  Historische  Theol., 
1848,  p.  284.' 

t  Lentz,  ut  supra,  p.  287;  Planck,  VT.,  p.  563. 
t  Lentz,  ut  supra,  p.  287. 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  497 

first  to  subscribe  were  the  theologians  at  Tiibingen,  then  the  con- 
sistory at  Stuttgart.  These  were  followed  by  prelates,  abbots 
and  pastors  throughout  the  territory.  No  opposition  was  made ; 
at  least  none  is  reported;  and,  October  7th,  the  Duke  reported 
to  Andreae  the  success  of  the  undertaking.* 

In  Mecklenburg,  Chytraeus  was  charged  with  the  business  of 
obtaining  subscriptions  to  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Six  Super- 
intendents met  at  Gustrov,  the  residence  of  the  Duke,  November 
12,  1577.  They  carefully  read  the  Formula  and  then  returned 
it  to  the  Duke  with  the  following  subscription  :  ' '  We,  the  Super- 
intendents of  the  churches  in  the  duchy  of  Mecklenburg,  have 
read  this  hook  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord  and  approve  it  quoad 
summam  rerum  [that  is,  in  essentials]  and  so  testify  hy  this 
our  subscription."  About  the  same  time  the  Formula  was  sub- 
scribed by  the  theologians  and  ministers  at  Rostock. 

It  is  evident  that  the  subscription  rendered  by  the  six 
Superintendents  did  not  please  the  Duke;  for,  November  20th, 
he  commanded  the  same  six  Superintendents  to  summon  synods, 
each  in  his  own  diocese,  to  read  the  Formula  carefully  to  the 
ministers,  and  kindly  to  invite  each  one  to  subscrilje.  "But  if 
they  are  not  yet  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrines,  and 
refuse  subscription,  time  shall  be  given  them  for  deliberation. 
But  meanwhile  let  them  abstain  from  all  criticism  of  it  before 
the  people,  unless  they  are  willing  to  submit  to  the  penalty 
of  removal."  Subscription  was  refused  only  by  the  Superin- 
tendent of  AVismar  and  one  or  two  pastors.  These  were  sus- 
pended from  office,  and  forbidden  to  preach.  Later  they  were 
dismissed  from  office,  when  it  was  learned  that  they  still  per- 
sisted in  their  refusal  to  subscribe  the  Formula.! 

At  a  convention  held,  January  12,  1579,  ^Margrave  George 
Frederick  of  Prussia  laid  the  Formula  of  Concord  before  Bishop 
Wigand  and  the  assembled  clergy,  and  requested  them  to  exam- 
ine it;  and  in  case  they  should  find  it  in  harmony  with  the 
Word  of  God  to  subscribe  it.  They  subsequently  reported  that 
they  had  subscribed  the  Formula  because  "it  was  not  contrary 
to  any  article  of  faith."  though  opposing  teachers  had  not 
been  named  and  refuted  as  they  had  desired.  They  regarded  it 
as  a  useful  work  and  asked  the  Prince  to  have  it  printed. 
"When  now  the  book  was  returned  to  the  Prince  subscribed  by 

*  Original  documents  given  by  Pressel,  nt  s^ipra.  pp.  4(3  et  seqq.  See 
Heppe,  III..  248. 

t  Schiitz,  Vita  Cln/trad,  II..  420  et  .^eqq. ;  Planck.  TT..  .165.  note  52; 
Heppe,  TIL,  255. 

o2 


498  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD. 

the  preachers,  he  sent  an  official  mandate  to  all  officials,  pastors 
and  teachers  throughout  Prussia  and  commanded  them  to  sub- 
scribe it,  which  was  also  immediately  done.  It  was  then  ordered 
this  same  year,  1579,  that  henceforth  in  the  church  visitation 
inquiry  should  be  made  whether  the  preachers  in  the  territory 
teach  according  to  the  Corpus  Doctrinae  Prntoiicioi)  and  ac- 
cording to  the  Formula  of  Concord. ' '  * 

But  the  subscriptions  were  not  obtained  without  reservations 
and  protests  for  the  protection  of  consciences.  The  situation  in 
Prussia  was  also  complicated  by  the  bitter  antagonisms  that 
had  arisen  between  Heshuss  and  Wigand.  But  the  Margrave 
issued  a  new  command,  which,  he  hoped,  would  induce  the  theolo- 
gians to  lay  aside  their  condition.!  However,  the  professors 
of  theology  at  Konigsberg  did  not  subscribe.! 

Thus  have  we  described  briefly  the  methods  by  which  subscrip- 
tion to  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  obtained  in  the  more  im- 
portant territories  and  cities  of  the  German  Empire,  and  in 
Prussia,  which  was  not  at  that  time  a  part  of  the  Empire. 

Those  who  are  in  search  of  fuller  and  detailed  information 
on  this  subject  are  directed  to  read  Pressel's  Cliurfiirst  Ludwig 
von  der  Pfalz  uttd  die  Kon'kordienformcl,  found  in  ZeitscJirift 
fiir  Historisdie  TJieologic,  1867.  This  article  of  323  pages,  "ac- 
cording to  the  Originals  of  the  Dresden  and  Stuttgart  Archives 
and  a  Collection  in  the  Library  at  Gotha,"  contains  much  in- 
formation never  before  given  to  the  public  in  print.  This 
article  may  be  supplemented  by  Johannsen's  article  in  the  same 
Zeitschrift  for  18-47,  entitled:  Die  Vnterschrift  der  Concordien- 
formel  in  SacJisen;  and  by  Superintendent  Lentz's  article  in  the 
same  ZeitscJirift,  1848,  entitled  Die  Concordienformel  im  Her- 
zogthum,  Braunschweig.  Heppe's  somewhat  detailed  account, 
Vol.  III.,  216  et  seqq.,  presents  much  valuable  information. 

Our  instances  are  typical.  AVe  may  say :  From  these  few 
we  learn  that  the  methods  used  for  obtaining  subscriptions 
were  identical  in  spirit  rather  than  in  the  details  of  their  execu- 
tion. Politics,  statecraft  and  diplomacy  entered  largely  into  the 
execution.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  in  some  instances  subscrip- 
tion was  enjoined  by  the  civil  authority.  In  other  instances  the 
will  of  the  ruler  was  clearly  made  known.  Andreae  confesses 
that  he  treated  the  pastors  with  "such  severity"  that  they  seemed 

*  Hartknoch,  ut  supra,  pp.  487-8. 

t  For  a  lengthy  essay  on  the  Fluctuating  Attitude  of  the  Churches  in 
Prussia,  see  Pressel,  ut  supra,  pp.  521  et  seqq. 
X  Hartknoch,  ut  supra,  p.  488. 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF   CONCORD.  499 

to  hear  the  law  proclaimed  from  Sinai.  It  cannot  be  said  that 
the  rulers  used  the  method  of  Mohammed:  The  Koran  or  the 
sivord.  But  it  cannot  be  denied  that  in  some  instances,  if  not 
in  all,  the  ministers  and  teachers,  whose  rulers  had  approved  the 
Formula  of  Concord  had  the  alternative  presented,  either  ex- 
pi-essly  or  by  implication,  of  subscribing  or  of  being  discharged 
from  the  post  of  pastor  or  teacher.  That  is,  the  poor  preachers 
and  teachers  were  practically  helpless.  They  were  not  in  a 
position  to  assert  their  independence.  It  was  not  safe  to  resist 
the  will  of  the  ruler.  In  the  main  the  work  of  concord  had 
been  conducted  by  the  civil  rulers.  The  work  of  obtaining  the 
subscriptions  had  been  ordered  by  the  rulers  and  was  con- 
ducted according  to  their  command.  In  most  instances,  indeed 
as  a  rule,  the  ministers  had  not  been  consulted  in  regard  to  the 
composition  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  now  no  time  nor 
opportunity  was  allowed  for  that  careful  examination  of  its 
contents,  which  the  gravity  of  the  situation  imperatively  re- 
quired. The  entire  movement  was  precipitated.  The  clergy  and 
the  teachers  were  commanded  to  assemble  and  to  subscribe 
categorically.  A  single  public  reading  of  the  Formula  and 
reply  to  objections  raised  were  all  fhat  was  allowed.  This  was 
utterlj'  inadequate  for  making  a  proper  acquaintance  with  the 
contents  of  the  Formula,  and  for  consulting  with  one's  eon- 
science  and  convictions.  The  rulers  and  the  Bergic  Fathers 
acted  in  conjunction,  the  former  promptly  following  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  latter,  that  a  synod  should  not  be  held,  and 
that  the  work  of  obtaining  the  subscriptions  be  immediately 
begun.  Hence  in  every  proper  sense  of  the  word  the  Formula 
was  imposed  upon  the  Church  by  the  State,  and  not  accepted 
by  the  Church  in  the  full  unconstrained  exercise  of  her  free- 
dom, and  after  it  had  been  discussed  and  adopted  by  a  repre- 
sentative synod  in  accordance  with  the  historic  procedure  of  the 
Church  in  matters  of  that  kind.  And  beside  this  act  of  usurpa- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  State,  and  the  haste,  the  facts  justify  (es- 
pecially in  the  case  of  Saxony)  the  unqualified  declaration  that 
"the  work  of  subscription  was  conducted  with  all  kinds  of 
artifices  of  concealment"  (Verschweigungskiinsten).* 

That  many,  perhaps  very  many,  of  the  eight  thousand  and 

more    clergymen,    Avho    subscribed,    did    so    "with    mouth    and 

heart,"  and  because  they  honestly  believed  that  the  Formula 

contained  nothing  contrary  to  God's  Word,  is  true  beyond  the 

*  Moller-Kawerau,  Kirchengeschichte,  III.,  p.  294. 


500  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD. 

shadow  of  a  doubt.*  Many,  perhaps  all,  were  heartily  tired  of 
the  long  3^ears  of  controversy  through  which  they  had  passed. 
Some  preferred  bread  to  conviction.  But  thete  were  some 
churches  and  some  ministers  who  would  not  subscribe,  who  can- 
not on  account  of  such  refusal  be  charged  with  Crypto-Calvin- 
ism.    We  have  space  here  to  instance  only  three  such  churches. 

2.     Three  National  Churches. 

The  churches  in  Schleswig-Holstein  were  regarded  just  as 
orthodox  as  were  those  of  Lower  Saxony.  Under  the  General 
Superintendent  Paul  von  Eitzen  the  churches  of  this  duchy  had 
introduced  a  soundly  Lutheran  Corpus  Doctrinae,  which  in- 
cluded among  other  doctrinal  standards  the  following:  The 
Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  Luther's  two  Catechisms, 
and  the  Schmalkald  Articles.  They  had  repudiated  the  Calvin- 
ists  expressly,  and  had  declared  that  they  had  not  in  the  least 
deviated  from  Lutheran  standards;  and  yet  Schleswig-Holstein 
was  among  those  territories  which  declined  subscription  to  the 
Formula  of  Concord.  Andreae  and  Selneccer  wrote  to  Eitzen, 
and  the  Electors  of  Saxony  and  Brandenburg  sent  a  copy  of 
the  Bergie  Book  to  Duke  John  the  Elder  of  Hadersleben.  But 
all  to  no  effect.  Objection  is  made  to  the  many  scholastic  terms 
employed  in  the  Book,  and  that  errors  are  condemned  which 
have  been  long  dead,  and  are  known  only  to  the  learned,  and 
especially  that  "Jacob  Andreae  and  his  five  compeers  have 
assumed  this  general  authority  over  all  the  churches  which 
adhere  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  that  they,  without  the 
authority  of  a  general  synod,  have  set  forth  their  book  in  the 
name  of  a  general  confession  and  as  a  unanimous,  clear  inter- 
pretation of  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  be  accepted  and  sub- 
scribed by  the  churches  everywhere,  so  that  those  who  refuse 
such  acceptance  and  subscription  are  to  be  suspected  of  Crypto- 
fanaticism."  Further:  "After  a  careful  comparison  of  this 
Book  with  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Apology,  the  Schmal- 
kald Articles,  the  Catechisms  of  Luther,  the  Loci  Communes  of 
jNIelanchthon  published  during  the  lifetime  of  Luther,  we 
find  that  the  explanation  of  the  correct  doctrine  in  the  said 
books  and  writings  is  composed  and  set  forth  better,  plainer, 
more  orderly,  more  intelligibly,  more  thoroughly  than  is  done 
in  this  Formula  of  Concord.  Therefore,  since  we  must  speak 
according  to  our  consciences,  without  regard  to  the  authority  of 

*  Selnecoer.  Eccifatiniicf!.  p.  65. 


SUBSCKIPTION    TO    THE    FOEMULA    OF    CONCORD.  501 

men.  we  must  say  that  some  articles  are  set  forth  in  such  con- 
fusion and  are  so  defective  that  we  cannot  regard  and  approve 
this  Book  as  a  correct,  clear,  plain  confession  or  explanation  of 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  by  which  the  unity  of  the  true  doc- 
trine can  be  maintained  against  all  kinds  of  errors  and  be  pro- 
moted, so  that  by  the  reception  of  this  formula  as  a  general 
confession,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  books  which  here- 
tofore have  been  held  as  a  true  explanation  of  the  same,  and  to 
which  we  have  bound  ourselves  by  oath  with  a  good  conscience  to 
stand  by,  shall  be  brought  under  suspicion."  At  the  same  time 
Paul  von  Eitzen  presented  for  himself  reasons  why  he  could 
not  subscribe  the  Formula  of  Concord.  At  a  synod  of  theolo- 
gians, held  in  October,  1577,  three  censures  were  issued.  Various 
objections  were  raised  to  the  Formula:  It  had  ignored  Mel- 
anchthon  and  his  writings,  and  contained  "some  new  expres- 
sions that  are  unheard  of,  dark  and  not  sufficiently  intelligible." 
While  in  general  the  Formula  is  in  harmony  with  the  older 
symbols,  ''it  is  necessary  to  distinguish  between  the  propositions 
that  are  necessary  and  profitable  and  other  accidental, 
subtle  and  profound  queries. "  "  They  will  not,  by  a  hasty  sub- 
scription, bring  disorder  and  confusion  upon  their  churches 
which  have  hitherto  been  united.  Hence  subscription  is  de- 
clined, modestly,  conscientiously  and  finally.".*  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  synod  Avas  influenced  by  the  General  Superin- 
tendent. But  though  a  friend  of  Melanchthon 's,  Paul  von  Eitzen 
was  nevertheless  an  adherent  of  Luther's  doctrine,  as  the  oath 
of  subscription  which  he  introduced  into  the  churches  of  Schles- 
wig-Holstein  clearly  demonstrates. 

Much  effort  was  made  to  obtain  subscription  to  the  Formula 
of  Concord  in  Pomerania.  In  October.  1577,  Chemnitz  went  to 
Pomerania  in  order  to  confer  with  the  Pomeranian  theologians 
of  Wolgast,t  and  in  November  of  the  following  year  he  wrote 
d  long  letter  to  Superintendent  Jacob  Rung,  in  which  he  under- 
takes to  explain  many  things  in  the  Formula.t  May  12,  1578, 
the  Report  of  the  Pomeranian  churches  (Tn  the  Bergic  Book  was 
presented  at  a  synod  held  in  old  Stettin.  It  points  out  the 
changes  that  had  been  made  in  transforming  the  Torgau  Book 
into  the  Bergic  Book.    The  theologians  condemn  "the  statement 

*  For  details  see  Johannsen,  Zeitschrift  fur  Hist.  Theologie,  1850,  pp.  638 
et  seqq.;  Pressel,  the  same  Zeitschrift,  1867,  pp.  504  et  seqq. ;  Heppe,  III., 
308  et  seqq.;  but  especially  Donische  Bibliothelc,  1747,  VII.,  1-178. 

t  Lentz,  ut  supra,  p.  28*5 ;  Eehtmeyer,  III.,  p.  461. 

t  Given  by  Eehtmeyer,  III.,  Beylagen,  pp.  299  et  seqq. 


502  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF   CON'CORD. 

of  the  controversy"  on  Free-will  as  the  same  is  presented  in  the 
Formula.  The}-  say  that  many  of  them  as  students  at  Witten- 
berg had  heard  the  doctrine  of  Free-will  set  forth  by  Luther 
and  JMelanchthon  just  as  it  is  taught  in  the  Loci  Communes.  So 
they  themselves  have  taught.  They  deny  that  IMelanchthon  had 
ever  taught  that  man,  by  his  own  powers,  can  believe  the  Word 
of  God  or  can  give  his  consent  or  can  by  his  own  powers  fit 
himself  for  conversion.  IMelanchthon  had  taught  that  the  will 
of  man  is  not  wholly  inactive  when  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit. ' '  * 
At  a  synod  held  in  August,  1581,  these  objections,  as  regards 
substance,  were  reaffirmed,  with  the  declaration  that  the  authors 
of  the  Formula  had  been  warned  by  the  Rostock  Faculty  not 
to  reject  the  union  of  the  three  causes  in  conversion. f  And 
Jacob  Rung,  Superintendent,  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  "the 
authors  of  the  Formula  wanted  to  expurgate  Calvinism;  but 
with  great  skill  they  confirmed  and  introduced  Flacianism."  t 
But  as  proof  positive  that  the  Pomeranian  theologians  were  not 
inclined  to  Calvinism,  it  was  declared  at  a  General  S.^Tiod  held  in 
Stettin  in  March,  1577,  that  the  Pomeranian  churches  accept  the 
articles  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  on  the  Person  of  Christ,  on  Pre- 
destination and  Election,  on  Original  Sin,  as  they  had  been  set 
forth  in  the  Torgau  Book;  also  the  article  on  Free-will  as  set 
forth  in  the  same  Book  with  the  understanding  that  IMelanch- 
thon's  doctrine  of  Free-will  is  in  fundamental  harmony  with 
that  of  Luther  on  the  same  subject.  The  Pomeranian  clergy 
revolted  especially  against  the  changes  that  had  been  intro- 
duced into  the  Bergic  Book,  though  they  by  no  means  approved 
the  Torgau  Book  as  a  whole.  They  even  approved  in  the  main 
the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  of  the  Person  of 
Christ  as  set  forth  in  the  Bergic  Book,  though  they  wished  the 
doctrine  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum  to  be  improved  and 
that  the  belief  of  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper  be 
based  upon  the  words  of  institution  rather  than  on  the  dogma 
of  the  personal  union  of  the  natures  of  Christ,  and  on  the  dogma 
of  the  right  hand  of  God.  They  also  object  to  the  exaltation  of 
the  Mayence  copy  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  to  the  highest 
place.     The  Torgau  Book  was  emphatically  rejected.     In  the 

*  Baltliaser 's  Andere  Sammlung  sur  Pom.  Kir  die  n -Hist  or  ie,  pp.  116  et 
seqq. 

t  Ut  supra,  pp.  231  et  seqq. 

$  See  Acta  of  this  General  Synod  in  Baltliaser 's  Erste  Sammhuifj.  i>p. 
325  et  seqq. 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO    TIIK    FORMULA    OF   CONCORD.  503 

year  1593,  portions  of  it  were  introduced  into  tlie  Corpus  Doc- 
trinae  Fomeran iciirn. 

Niirnberg,  as  we  have  long  ago  learned,  had  its  Nornial  Book,  / 

which  contained,  among  other  standards  of  doctrine,  the  cate- 
chisms of  Luther  and  the  Sehraalkald  Articles,  though  the  Niirn- 
bergers  were  warmly  attached  to  INIelanchthon.  In  September, 
1577,  INlargrave  George  Frederick  of  Ansbach,  sent  a  copy  of 
the  Formula  of  Concord  to  the  Senate  of  Niirnberg  with  the 
request  to  have  it  signed  categorically  by  the  ministers  and 
teachers,  inasmuch  as  it  had  been  signed  by  the  clergy  in  Ans- 
bach and  in  many  other  territories.  The  ministers  of  the  city 
affirm  their  adherence  to  their  Normal  Book,  and  complain  of 
some  of  the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Bergic  Book,  as,  that  man 
in  conversion  is  a  block,  a  stone,  a  pillar  of  salt,  worse  than  a  C^^ 
wild  beast.  They  object  to  the  article  on  the  Law  and  Gospel  as 
in  contradiction  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  also  they  object 
that  the  true  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper  should  be  based  ^^^'^ 
"on  the  ill-devised  and  hitherto  unheard  of  ubiquity  or  omni- 
presence in  all  creatures."  They  object  to  the  manner  in  which 
the  subscriptions  had  been  obtained  as  contrary  to  the  practice 
of  the  Church.  A  synod  should  be  called  to  examine  the  Bergic 
Book.  That  these  Niirnbergers  were  neither  Calvinistic  nor 
Crypto-Calvinistic  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  they  affirm  that  in 
the  Lord's  Supper  the  true  essential  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
are  received  alike  orally  by  the  worthy  and  by  the  unworthy 
who  use  the  sacrament  according  to  the  institution  of  Christ. 
They  are  also  grieved  that  where  the  Augsburg  Confession  is 
named  as  norm  of  doctrine  "reference  is  made  by  name  and 
expressly  only  to  the  first  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession."* 

3.  The  Main  Ohjections. 
The  objections  raised  by  other  states  and  cities  to  the  Formula 
of  Concord  agree  in  the  main  with  those  advanced  by  Schles- 
wig-Holstein,  Pomerania  and  Niirrlberg.  They  gather  for  the 
most  part  round  the  article  on  Free-will,  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity 
used  as  a  support  of  the  doctrine  of  the  real  and  essential  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  and  the  exclusive  use  of  "the  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession,"  whereas  it  was  known  and  could  be 
proved  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  editions  of  1540,  1541,  1542,  had 
been  again  and  again  sanctioned  as  authentic  explanations  of 

*  Original    matter   given   bv   Heppe,    III.,   299    et   seqq.,    notes,   and   bv 
Planck,  VI.,  589,  590,  note. 


504  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    COXCORD. 

the  Confession  that  had  been  delivered  to  the  Emperor  in  1530. 
The  doctrine  of  ubiquity  had  been  employed  by  Luther  in  his 
controversy  with  Zwingli,  and  had  not  been  formally  revoked 
b}'  him,  neither  had  it  been  subsequently  employed  by  him  as 
a  basis  of  his  doctrine  of  the  corporeal  presence  of  Christ  in 
the  Supper;  but  it  had  become  his  habit  to  appeal  to  the 
words  of  institution  as  a  reason  for  believing  such  presence. 
The  point  was  made  that  while  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity  was  a 
private  view  of  Luther's,  it  had  not  become  Lutheran  doctrine, 
and  could  be  found  noAvhere  in  the  older  creeds.  Its  introduc- 
tion into  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  regarded  by  many  theolo- 
gians as  an  attempt  to  make  Luther's  private  .view  on  this 
subject  confessional  for  the  entire  Lutheran  Church,  whereas  up 
to  that  time  it  had  become  normative  only  in  Swabia. 

And  as  for  the  doctrine  of  Free-will  it  was  an  undeniable  fact 
that  Luther  had  allowed  the  harsh  Determinism  of  the  De  Servo 
Arbitrio  to  drop  into  the  background,  and  that  during  Luther's 
lifetime,  Melanchthon 's  modification  of  Luther's  doctrine  of 
Free-will  had  been  accepted  without  controversy  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  and  without  objection  from  Luther,  yea,  even  with  his 
approbation,  since  he  had  placed  his  unqualified  imprimatur 
upon  the  Loci  Communes.    Even  more. 

It  could  not  be  denied  that  the  ]\Ielanchthonian  doctrine  of 
Free-Avill  had  been  endorsed  and  expounded  by  at  least  four  of 
the  authors  of  the  Formula,  and,  in  some  of  its  essential  features, 
had  been  set  forth  in  the  Sivahian-Saxon  Concordia  and  in  the 
Torgau  Book.  Of  course  there  Avere  minor  objections,  and  some 
that  Avere  purely  local.  But  refusal  to  subscribe  the  Formula 
cannot  be  charged  to  the  influence  of  Crypto-Calvinism,  as  some 
of  the  older  writers,  Avho  narrated  in  the  interest  of  prejudice 
rather  than  in  that  of  scientific  history,  Avere  accustomed  to 
allege.  Modern  investigators  have  shoAvn  by  the  use  of  official 
documents  that  the  great  majority  of  those  AA^ho  rejected  the 
Formula,  some  Avith  more,  some  Avith  less,  decisiveness,  were 
adherents  of  all  the  older  confessions,  and  bequeathed  them,  or 
at  least  the  Augsburg  Confession,  unimpaired  to  their  descend- 
ants. While  some  of  the  descendants  of  those  AA^ho  subscribed 
the  Formula  AvithdrcAv  from  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  Avill  be 
more  specifically  shoAA'n  hereafter. 

Thus  Ave  see  that  the  sphere  of  the  influence  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord  Avas  limited  at  the  beginning,  and  that  such  sphere 
became  subsequently  diminished :  and  it  has  continued  to  dimin- 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  505 

ish  until  to-day  only  about  one-third  of  the  Lutherans  of  the 
world  include  it  among  their  symbols.  It  is  the  present  custom 
of  the  vast  majority  of  Lutheran  theologians  to  accord  it  high 
theological  value,  to  apologize  for  it  as  a  child  of  its  time,  and 
to  quote  it  for  the  support  and  confirmation  of  didactic  views. 
The  number  of  those  who  find  it  to  be  the  expression  of  their 
personal  faith,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  may  be  supposed  to 
have  expressed  the  theological  convictions  of  those  who  com- 
posed it,  is  very  small  indeed.  Theological  study,  and  especially 
the  study  of  Symbolics,  has  changed  the  point  of  view,  and  has 
brought  the  distinction  between  the  substance  and  the  form  of 
the  Confessions  which  is  now  almost  universally  recognized  by 
Lutheran  theologians. 

4.     The  Effect  of  Suhscription. 

The  Formula  of  Concord  in  aiming  to  become  the  defining  sym- 
bol of  Lutheranism  put  an  end  to  some  distracting  controversies 
and  unified  and  solidified  the  adherents  of  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion in  by  far  the  larger  part  of  Germany.  Theologians  in  the  uni- 
versities of  the  Princes  who  had  adopted  it,  as  a  rule,  bound 
themselves  to  teach  in  harmony  with  its  explanation  of  the 
articles  of  which  it  treats.  The  result  was  the  stately  Lutheran 
Dogmatic  of  the  seventeenth  century,  which  has  been  compared 
to  the  splendid  cathedrals  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  which  ranks, 
and  will  continue  to  rank,  as  one  of  the  most  objective,  acute, 
learned,  intellectual,  elaborations  of  Christian  dogma  that  has 
yet  appeared,  and  that  is  likely  to  appear  in  the  Church  Militant, 
and  which  is  indispensable  for  the  dogmatic  training  of  the 
Lutheran  theologian,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  it  is  exclusive 
in  conception,  scholastic  in  form,  and  deficient  in  its  applica- 
tion of  the  Lutheran  material  principle  that  the  faith  which  he- 
Ueves  is  more  important  than  the  faith  which  is  Relieved,  that 
is,  as  ]\Iartensen  has  phrased  it,  the  Formula  of  Concord  has 
overlooked  the  fact  that  ''the  saving  agent  is  not  chiefly  a 
definite  quantum  of  doctrinal  propositions,  but  the  communica- 
tion and  reception  of  the  principle  of  the  neiv  creation."  * 

The  Lutheran  Dogmatic  of  the  seventeenth  century  simply 
carried  out  logically  the  premises  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
until  it  developed  orthodoxy  into  the  orthodoxism  which  preceded 
the  advent  of  Pietism  under  the  labor  of  Spener  and  Francke, 
which  brought  into  practical  application  the  old  Lutheran  teach- 
*  Christian  Dogmatics,   Eng.   Trans.,  p.   37. 


506  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA   OF   COXCORD. 

ing  that  the  Gospel  is  the  promise,  the  teaching,  the  preaching 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  justification  for  the  sake  of 
Christ;  whereas  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  it  is  declared  that 
"the  Gospel  is  properly  the  doctrine  which  teaches  what  that 
most  wretched  sinner  ought  to  believe  in  order  that  he  may  ob- 
tain the  pardon  of  sins  with  God"  (Miiller,  p.  637). 

Saving  faith  is  now  regarded  as  an  intellectual  apprehension 
of  dogma  rather  than  as  confidence  in  the  promise  of  the  Gospel 
and  absolute  surrender  to  a  personal  Christ.  The  purview  has 
been  changed.  The  fides  explicita  rather  than  the  fides  implicita 
is  regarded  as  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation.  Hence 
Kawerau,  writing  of  "the  drawbacks"  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, after  quoting  the  passage  just  quoted  above,  says  very 
properly :  "A  proposition  by  the  side  of  which  stands  the  good 
evangelical  declaration:  'To  believe  is  to  place  one's  entire 
confidence  on  Christ  alone,'  but  which  is  yet  not  only  'unfortun- 
ately worded'  (Seeberg,  D.  G.  II.,  371),  but  it  must  work 
greater  confusion  the  more  innocently  it  is  identified  with  the 
evangelical  conception  of  faith.  The  way  was  opened  for  an 
intellectual  contemplation  of  religion.  A  new  scholastic  dog- 
matic overgrew  the  old  simple  Confession  of  the  Evangelical 
Church.  A  period  of  prosperity  was  introduced,  but  one  fatal 
to  the  Church  of  th  eologians. ' '  * 

But  while  the  Formula  of  Concord  did  very  generally  settle 
former  and  contemporaneous  controversies  in  the  larger  part 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Germany,  it  gave  rise  to  new  con- 
troversies. At  different  times  and  in  different  places  its  ad- 
herents fell  out  among  themselves,  but  especially  was  its  intro- 
duction followed  by  war  between  those  who  accepted  it  and 
those  who  rejected  it.  The  former  insisted  on  making  it  a  test 
of  soundness  in  the  Lutheran  doctrine,  especially  in  the  articles 
of  Free-will  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  They  were  not  satisfied 
when  the  latter  appealed  to  their  own  Corpora  Doctrinoe,  de- 
nied all  sympathy  with  Pelagianism  and  semi-Pel agianism,  and 
with  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Supper.  It  was  insisted  that, 
as  a  test  of  sincerity,  they  must  express  themselves  in  the  very 
language  of  the  Formula.  The  reply  that  the  theory  of  absolute 
passivity  in  conversion  and  the  dogma  of  ubiquity  could  not  be 
found  in  the  older  confessions,  nor  in  the  generally  accepted  dog- 
matic teaching,  was  not  sufficient  to  save  the  recusants  from  se- 
vere condemnation,  though  their  refusal  to  subscribe  the  Formula 
*  MiiUer-Kaweran,    Kirch rufjrschichtc.   3  ed.,   III.,   295. 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  507 

did  not  deprive  them  of  their  Lutheran  character,  nor  debar 
them  from  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights  and  privileges  guaran- 
teed by  the  Religious  Peace  of  1555.*  Hence,  notwithstanding 
the  efforts  of  the  zealots,  the  Formula  of  Concord  did  not 
attain  to  the  distinction  of  being  made,  or  of  being  regarded  as, 
the  test  of  Lutheranisni,  not  even  in  the  case  of  those  who 
denied  that  its  explanations  are  faithful  and  logical  develop- 
ments of  the  corresponding  articles  of  the  older  confessions. 
When  Duke  Julius  renounced  the  Formula,  he  and  his  people 
returned  to  the  Corpus  Julium,  and  the  Duke  offered  means 
and  assistance  to  any  who  would  refute  the  doctrine  of  ubi- 
quity.t  The  University  of  Ilelmstadt  ])ecame  the  home  of  a 
Lutheran  theology  which  was  not  bound  by  the  Formula  of 
Concord.  Indeed,  Calixtus  declared  that,  had  he  been  required 
to  pledge  himself  to  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity,  as  set  forth  in 
the  Formula  of  Concord,  he  would  not  have  settled  at  Helm- 
stadt.J 

The  next  century  witnessed  the  prolonged  controversy  be- 
tween the  Universities  of  Tiibingen  and  Giessen,  both  of  which 
were  attached  to  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Giessen  defended 
Kenotism,  that  is,  that  Christ  during  the  period  of  his  humilia- 
tion utterly  abstained  from  the  use  of  the  divine  attribute;  the 
Tiibingen  theologians  maintained  that  Christ  used  his  divine 
attributes  secretly.  This  controversy  has  been  described  as  "an 
after-effect  of  the  still  remaining  dissonances,  so  laboriously 
concealed  in  the  Formula  of  Concord."  And  certain  it  is  that 
the  doctrinal  controversies  that  have  distracted  and  separated 
the  Lutherans  in  America  have  sprung  out  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  which  in  some  cases  is  differently  understood  by  those 
who  suliscribe  to  it,  and  in  some  cases  it  is  held  up  as  the  final 
test  against  those  who  have  not  accepted  it.  Hence  it  is  not 
possible  to  say  truthfully  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  has 
been  an  instrument  of  concord  within  the  Lutheran  Church, 
since  not  a  few  Lutherans  who  have  held  it,  have  stood  in  a 
state  of  violent  discord  with  each  other;  and  bodies  of  Luther- 
ans in  America  which  stand  in  a  state  of  violent  discord  toward 
each  other  at  the  present  time,  are  uncompromising  adherents 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

Such  has  been  the  history  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  in  its 

*  Dorner,  History  of  Protestant  Theology  (Eng.  Trans.),  I.,  383;  Moller- 
Kawerau,   KirchengescMclite,  3d  eel..   III.,  296;   Eng.   Transl.,   III.,   295. 
t  Eehtmeyer.    [I'l.,  488-9. 
t  Ibid.,  489;  Walch,  Streiiir/leiten,  IV.,  pp.  .530  et  seqq. 


508  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD. 

effect  within  the  Lutheran  Church.  It  is  a  historical  document. 
Its  history,  whether  it  support  or  controvene  preferences  and 
preconceived  opinions,  ought  to  be  plainly  and  fully  told.  Har- 
mony in  the  Lutheran  Church  cannot  be  promoted  by  conceal- 
ment. To  uncover  its  history  is  the  duty  of  the  historian  who 
undertakes  to  write  the  confessional  history  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.  Those  who  admire  it  most  and  find  in  it  the  expression 
of  their  faith  should  be  the  first  to  present  in  detail  the  facts 
connected  with  its  history,  and  should  be  the  last  to  find  fault 
with  those  who  have  undertaken  to  do  what  they  themselves 
have  not  done.  The  chief  regret  of  the  present  writer  at  this 
point  is  that  the  plan  and  compass  of  his  work  does  not  permit 
him  to  enter  into  details.  But,  in  addition  to  the  sources  of 
information  already  given,  we  point  to  Planck's  Geschichte  der 
Frotestantischen  TJieologie,  Vol.  VI.,  690  et  seqq.,  and  pp.  816 
et  seqq.,  and  to  the  first  three  chapters  of  his  Geschichte  der 
Frotestantischen  Theologie  von  der  Konkordienf ormel  an  his  in 
die  Mitte  des  achtzehnten  Jahrhunderts.  Planck  has  fortified  his 
statements  and  conclusions  by  constant  references  to  and  quota- 
tions from  the  sources  of  information.  He  has  never  yet  been 
shown  to  be  wrong  in  any  point  that  is  essential  to  his  narrative. 

But  there  is  another  of  the  effects  of  the  subscription  and  in- 
troduction of  the  Formula  of  Concord  that  cannot  be  passed 
over  in  silence :  It  made  a  complete  and  irreconcilable  breach 
between  the  Lutherans  and  the  Calvinists,  and  drove  thousands 
of  the  friends  and  followers  of  Melanchthon  into  the  ranks  of 
Calvinism,  which  in  Germany  appeared,  confessionally,  for  the 
most  part  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.  Some  have  regarded 
this  separation  as  inevitable.  Others  have  held  that  it  is  a 
merit  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  that  it  hastened  and  completed 
the  separation.  In  the  attacks  made  on  the  Formula  by  the 
devil  and  his  organs,  the  heretics,  Hutter  sees  a  clear  proof 
that  it  was  composed  by  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  "a 
norm  and  form  of  sound  doctrine,"  in  complete  harmony  with 
the  infallible  Divine  Word.* 

The  Formula  was  assailed  from  different  quarters.  In  1579 
Christopher  Herdessianus,  a  Niirnberg  syndic,  under  the  name 
of  Ambrose  Wolf,  published  two  books  against  it.  The  next 
year  he  issued  his  Historie  von  der  A  .mgsburgischen  Confession 
.  er  ivider  die  Fatres  Bergenses  vnd  anderen  Vbiquitisten 
verfiihrischen  Betriig.  Quarto,  pp.  637.  Printed  at  Neustadt  an 
*  Concordia  Concors.  Chap.  XLI. 


SUBSCRIPTIOX    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  509 

der  Hardt.  In  1581,  Ursinus  and  other  theologians  who  had  been 
banished  from  Heidelberg  when  the  Formula  was  introduced  in 
the  Palatinate  by  the  Elector  Ludwig,  published  Admonitio 
Christiana,  quarto,  pp.  455,  printed  at  Neustadt  an  der  Hardt. 
In  the  same  year  the  preachers  at  Bremen  published  in  quarto  a 
defense  of  their  doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  the  sacraments, 
election  and  ceremonies.  In  the  same  year  the  theologians  of 
Anhalt  sent  for  a  censure  on  the  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord. In  the  same  year  Christopher  Irenaeus,  a  confirmed  Fla- 
cianist,  in  his  Examen  lihri  Concordiae,  "dared  to  attack  what 
had  been  taught  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  on  original  sin." 
Books  had  also  appeared  at  Geneva,  in  1578  and  1579,  against 
the  Formula.  Even  the  ministers  of  Belgium  had  addressed  a 
letter  "to  the  Authors  of  the  Bergic  Book."  * 

The  chief  objections  raised  against  the  Formula  of  Concord 
in  these  attacks  have  to  do  with  the  Person  of  Christ  and  the 
Lord's  Supper.  The  Anhalt  theologians  protested  especially 
against  the  confounding  of  the  Son  of  Mary  with  the  Son  of 
Ood.  The  Admonitio  Christiayia  defends  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
trine of  the  Supper  as  chiefly  a  communion  in  which  Christ  im- 
parts to  us  the  benefits  of  his  body  and  blood.  It  denies  the 
doctrine  of  oral  manducation  as  diametrically  opposed  to  the 
Scriptures.  Ambrose  Wolf  attacked  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity 
and  that  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  set  forth  in  the  Formula,  in 
the  interest  of  the  union  of  the  Lutherans  and  Reformed  as  set 
forth  in  the  Wittenberg  Concord  of  the  year  1536. 

To  refute  these  and  other  "objections"  and  "calumnies" 
against  the  Formula  of  Concord,  Timothy  Kirchner,  Nicholas 
Selneecer  and  Martin  Chemnitz  drew  up  what  is  known  as  the 
Apologia,  oder  Verantwortung  des  Concordien  Bucks,  sometimes 
called  the  Erfurt  Book,  because  it  was  composed  at  Erfurt. f 
The  first  part,  written  by  Kirchner,  but  with  preface  signed 
also  by  the  other  two,  is  directed  against  the  Admonitio  Chris- 
tiana of  the  Neustadt  theologians  and  the  censure  of  the  Anhalt 

*  See  titles  and  descriptions  of  this  polemical  literature  against  the  For- 
mula of  Concord  in  Walch,  Einleitung  in  die  Beligions-Streitiglieiten,  I.,  165 
et  seqq. ;  Walch,  Bibliotheca  Theologica,  I.,  376  et  seqq;  Feuerlin-Riederer, 
pp.  194  et  seqq.;  Walch,  Introductio,  pp.  734  et  seqq.;  Kolde,  Einleitung, 
p.  Ixxvii.  The  copy  of  the  Erfurt  Book  in  our  hands  was  published  in 
Dresden  in  1584.  Fol.  It  does  not  contain  Part  III.  See  Walch,  Biblio- 
theca, I.,  378;  Feuerlin-Eiederer,  p.  205. 

t  It  was  composed  at  Erfurt  in  tlie  Autumn  of  1581.  was  revised  in  May, 
1582,  at  Brunswick,  and  completed  at  Quedlinburg  in  January,  1583.  For 
an  extended  account  of  the  composition,  revision  and  publication  of  this 
famous  book,  see  Heppe,  Geschichte  der  Luth.  Concordienformel,  II.,  2S4-311. 


510  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD. 

clergy.  It  defends  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity,  but  denies  that  the 
essential  divine  attributes  are  imparted  to  the  human  nature  of 
Christ.  It  bases  the  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper 
both  upon  ubiquity  and  upon  the  words  of  institution.  But  the 
human  nature  of  Christ,  because  of  its  union  with  the  divine 
nature,  is  to  be  adored.  This  first  part  was  published  at  Heidel- 
berg in  1583.  It  consists  of  227  large  folia.  The  second  part 
forms  the  reply  to  the  Bremenese.  This  also  was  written  by 
Kirchner,  and  was  published  at  Heidelberg  in  1583.  It  contains 
167  folia.  The  title  is:  Warhaffte  Christliche  und  gegriindte 
Widerlegioig,  etc.  At  the  very  beginning  it  denies  that  the 
authors  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  ever  taught  that  "Christ  is 
present  in  all  created  things,  in  leaves,  in  grass,  in  stone,  in 
wood,  in  all  unclean  places."  It  also  denies  an  adequation  of 
the  two  natures  of  Christ.  But  it  defends  the  doctrine  of  the 
true  essential  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Supper,  and  oral  man- 
ducation  of  his  body  by  all  communicants,  by  a  Judas  as  well 
as  by  Peter  and  all  saints.  ' '  The  body  of  Christ,  which  is  present 
in  the  Supper,  is  distributed  in  a  supernatural,  heavenly  manner 
and  in  no  sense  enters  the  stomach  after  the  manner  of  other 
food. ' '  The  third  part,  also  composed  by  Kirchner,  is  entitled : 
Refutatio  Irenaei,  published  at  Heidelberg  in  1583.  Quarto.  The 
fourth  part  of  the  Apologia,  composed  by  Chemnitz  and  Sel- 
neccer,  is  entitled:  Grilndliche  Warlia/ftige  Historie  von  der 
Augspurgisclien  Confession  \vie  die  anno  1530  geschriehen,  etc. 
It  is  sub-titled:  Bel-entnis  der  Augsp.  Confession  vom  heiligen 
Ahendmal.  It  consists  of  519  pages  folio,  and  was  printed  at 
Leipzig  in  the  year  1584.  In  content  this  part  is  a  chronological 
history  of  the  sacramentarian  controversy  "against  the  imag- 
inary, hypocritical,  falsified  History  of  Ambrose  AVolf. "  It 
aims  to  show  how  the  Augsburg  Confession  in  the  Article  on 
the  Lord's  Supper  has  always  been  understood  and  defended  by 
and  in  the  pure  churches  and  schools,  viz.,  that  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  Christ  is  truly  and  essentially  present,  and  is  admiji- 
istered  to  all  who  eat  and  drink  in  the  Supper.* 

This  Erfurt  Book,  of  which  parts  I.,  II.,  IV.  aggregate  1307 
folio  pages,  is  the  most  learned  defense  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord that  has  ever  been  written.  It  is  composed  in  the  polemical 
style  of  its  time,  though  it  is  less  violent  and  abusive  than  many 

*  For  particulars  about  editions,  dates,  titles,  etc.,  of  this  Erfurt  Book, 
see  Feuerlin-Eiederer,  pp.  204  et  scqq.,  and  Walch,  Bihliotheca  TheoJogica, 
I.,  377  et  seqq.;  Walch,  Introductio,  p.  736. 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  511 

of  its  controversial  contemporaries.  Its  special  characteristic 
is,  that  it,  perhaps  more  than  any  other  book,  determines  the 
meaning  of  Articles  VII.  and  VIII.  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
by  fixing  upon  the  former  Luther's  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per as  set  forth  and  defended  in  his  polemical  writings,  and  by 
fixing  upon  the  latter  the  Swabian  Christology — neither  of  which 
had  the  consensus  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  which  have  not 
had  the  consensus  of  the  Lutheran  Church  to  this  day. 

The  Erfurt  Book  was  enhanced  in  authority  and  influence  by 
the  fact  that  it  had  been  composed  by  the  command  of  three 
Electors,*  and  by  the  fact  that  it  had  been  carefully  examined 
by  friendly  theologians  before  it  was  published.  But  it  did  not 
put  an  end  to  the  controversy  which  the  Formula  of  Concord 
had  excited.  The  Xeustadt  theologians  published  A  Defense  of 
the  Admonition  against  the  Sophisms  and  Cavils  of  the  Erfurt 
Apology.  The  theologians  of  Bremen  and  Anhalt  also  made 
reply  to  the  Erfurt  Apology.  These  rejoinders  called  forth 
counter-rejoinders,  and  so  the  controversy  proceeded  from  bad 
to  worse,  with  the  result  that  the  one  party  became  more  ardent 
in  its  support  of  the  Formula  and  the  other  more  bitter  in  its 
opposition. t  The  friends  and  pupils  of  ^lelanchthon,  who  saw 
and  heard  themselves  denounced  as  Calvinists  and  sacramen- 
tarians,  and  perceived  that  the  purpose  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord was  to  fix  Lutherism,  rather  than  Lutheranism,  upon  the 
Lutheran  Church,  became  estranged  from  the  Lutheran  Church 
and  constituted  themselves  the  Reformed  Church  in  Germany, 
with  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as  their  doctrinal  standard. 

This  was  done  in  the  Palatinate  in  1583-5,  when  John  Casimir, 
the  guardian  of  the  youthful  Frederick,  united  himself  with  the 
Reformed  and  took  the  great  majority  of  the  people  with  hira.t 
Anhalt  became  Reformed  in  1588 :  Zweibriicken  in  1588 ;  Hanau 
in  1596 ;  Hesse  in  1604-6.  In  1613-14,  John  Sigismund,  Elector 
of  Brandenburg. §  renounced  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  ac- 
cepted the  Reformed  faith,  whereby  the  royal  house  of  Prussia, 

"*  Wak-h,  Introductio,  p.  736. 

t  Walch,  Bihliotheca  Theologica,  I.,  379  et  seqq. 

t  Struve,  Ffalzisclie  KirclienSintorie ,  pp.  110  et  seqq.  See  also  Good, 
Origin  of  the  Beformed  Church  in  Germany,  pp.  307  et  seqq.;  Gieseler,  IV., 
493;  Moller-Kawerau.  3d  ed.,  III.,  299  et  seqq.  Differences  in  dates.  John 
Casimir  dismissed  400  Lutheran  ministers  from  office,  as  his  brother,  Lud- 
wig,  on  introducing  the  Formula  of  Concord,  had  dismissed  500  Eeformed 
ministers. 

S  See  the  Confessio  Sigismundi,  1614,  and  Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom, 
I.,  555-6. 


512  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD. 

and  now  the  imperial  house  of  Germany,  became  Reformed,  so 
that  its  members  are  instructed  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 
Whence  also  the  union  in  the  nine  old  Prussian  provinces,  where 
the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  are 
placed  on  confessional  equality,  and  this  has  brought  about 
the  transference  of  the  hegemony  of  German  Protestantism 
from  the  Palatinate  and  Saxony  to  Brandenburg-Prussia. 

Such,  in  part,  were  the  effects  of  the  subscription  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  and  of  the  methods  employed  for  its  in- 
troduction into  the  Lutheran  Church.  The  learned  and  im- 
partial Lutheran  historian,  Dr.  Mosheim,  has  exhibited  the  whole 
situation  as  follows:  "This  new  Confession  of  the  Lutheran 
faith  was  adopted  first  by  the  Saxons  in  consequence  of  a  strict 
order  of  Augustus;  and  their  example  was  followed  by  the 
greatest  part  of  the  Lutheran  churches,  by  some  sooner,  by 
some  later.  The  authority  of  this  Confession,  as  is  sufficiently 
known,  was  employed  for  the  following  purposes :  First,  to 
terminate  the  controversies  which  divided  the  Lutheran  Church, 
more  especially  after  the  death  of  its  founder;  and,  secondly,  to 
preserve  that  Church  against  the  opinions  of  the  Reformed  in 
relation  to  the  Eucharist. 

"This  very  Formula,  however,  which  was  designed  to  restore 
peace  and  concord  in  the  Church,  and  had  actually  produced 
this  effect  in  several  places,  became  a  source  of -new  tumults,  and 
furnished  matter  for  the  most  violent  discussions  and  contests. 
It  immediately  met  with  a  warm  opposition  from  the  Reformed, 
and  also  from  all  those  who  were  either  secretly  attached  to 
their  doctrine,  or  who,  at  least,  Avere  desirous  of  living  in  con- 
cord and  communion  with  them,  from  a  laudable  zeal  for  the 
common  interest  of  the  Protestant  cause.  Nor  was  their  oppo- 
sition at  all  unaccountable,  since  they  plainly  perceived  that 
this  Formula  removed  all  the  flattering  hopes  they  had  enter- 
tained of  seeing  the  divisions  that  reigned  among  the  friends  of 
religious  liberty  happily  healed,  and  entirely  excluded  the  Re- 
formed from  the  communion  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Hence 
they  were  filled  with  indignation  against  the  authors  of  this  new 
confession  of  faith,  and  exposed  their  uncharitable  proceedings 
in  writings  full  of  spirit  and  vehemence.  The  Swiss  doctors, 
with  Hospinian  at  their  head,  the  Belgic  divines,  those  of  the 
Palatinate,  together  with  the  principalities  of  Anhalt  and  Baden, 
declared  war  against  the  Formula ;  and  accordingly,  from  this 
period  the  Lutheran,  more  especially  the  Saxon,  doctors  were 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO   THp:    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  513 

charged  with  the  clisagTeeable  task  of  defending  this  new  creed 
and  its  compilers  in  many  laborious  productions. 

"Nor  were  the  followers  of  Zwingli  and  Calvin  the  only  op- 
posers  of  this  Formula.  It  found  adversaries  even  in  the  very 
bosom  of  Lutheranism,  and  several  of  the  most  eminent  churches 
of  that  communion  rejected  it  with  such  firmness  and  resolution, 
that  no  arguments  or  entreaties  could  engage  them  to  admit  it 
as  a  rule  of  faith,  or  even  as  a  means  of  instruction.  It  was  re- 
jected by  the  church  of  Niirnberg,  by  those  of  Hesse,  Pomerania, 
Holstein,  Silesia,  Denmark,  Brunswick  and  others.  But  they 
all  united  in  opposing  it.  Their  opposition  was  founded  on  dif- 
ferent reasons,  nor  did  they  all  act  in  this  affair  from  the  same 
motives  or  the  same  principles.  A  warm  and  affectionate  venera- 
tion for  the  memory  of  ]Melanchthon  was,  with  some,  the  only,  or 
at  least  the  predominant,  motive  that  induced  them  to  declare 
against  the  formula  in  question ;  they  could  not  behold  without 
the  utmost  abhorrence  a  production  in  which  the  sentiments  of 
this  great  and  excellent  man  were  so  rudely  treated.  In  this  class 
we  may  rank  the  Lutherans  of  Holstein.  Others  were  not  only 
animated  in  their  opposition  by  a  regard  for  ^Melanchthon,  but 
also  by  a  persuasion  that  the  opinions,  condemned  in  the  new 
creed,  were  more  conformable  to  truth  than  those  substituted  in 
their  place.  A  secret  attachment  to  the  sentiments  of  the  Helvetic 
doctors  prevented  some  from  approving  the  Formula  under  con- 
sideration;  the  hopes  of  uniting  the  Reformed  and  .Lutheran 
churches  engaged  many  to  declare  against  it ;  and  a  considerable 
number  refused  their  assent  to  it  from  an  apprehension,  whether 
real  or  pretended,  that  the  addition  of  a  new  creed  to  the  ancient 
confessions  of  faith  would  be  really  a  source  of  disturbance  and 
discord  in  the  Lutheran  Church.  It  would  be  endless  to  enum- 
erate the  different  reasons  alleged  by  the  different  individuals 
or  communities,  who  declared  their  dissent  from  the  Formula  of 
Concord. ' '  * 

Planck  has  examined  the  subject  with  great  thoroughness. 
After  showing  that  the  chief  objections  to  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord revolved  round  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity  and  the  doctrine 
of  the  Lord  \s  Supper  as  related  to  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity,  and 
after  pointing  out  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  as  so 
related,  was  made  the  touchstone  of  pure  Lutheranism,  and 
subscription  to  the  Formula  of  Concord  was  demanded  as  evi- 

*  Mosheim,  Ecclesiastical  History.  Ancient  and  Modern.  English  Transla- 
tion, pp.  167  et  seqq. 


514  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    <^ONCORD. 

dence  of  tnie  Lutheranisni,  and  that  many  who  refused  to  sub- 
scribe had  always  protested  their  adherence  to  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trine as  the  Liitheran  Church  had  publicly  confessed  it — after  a 
detailed  description  of  such  things,  Planck  asks:  "AVhat,  then, 
must  be  the  consequence  of  pressing'  upon  such  men  a  distinction 
in  reference  to  the  Lord's  Supper  contained  in  the  new  Formula 
of  Concord,  Avith  its  doctrine  of  ubiquity,  which,  according  to 
most  positive  convictions,  is  neither  tenable  nor  capable  of 
proof,  and  had  never  been  a  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church  ? ' ' 
His  answer  is  as  follows :  ' '  Only  this  could  result,  and  only  this 
did  result,  that  not  only  many  individual  theologians,  but  also 
many  churches,  which  had  belonged  hitherto  to  the  Lutheran 
party,  from  this  time  on  approached  nearer  and  nearer  to  the 
Calvinistic  Church,  and  soon  went  over  formally  and  fully  to  it. 
In  the  year  1580,  when  the  Formula  was  published,  there  were 
only  two  churches  in  Germany  which  had  definitely  declared 
themselves  in  favor  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  namel}^,  that  at  Bremen  and  the  church  at  Neustadt  on 
the  Hardt,  where  the  Palsgrave  John  Casimir  had  his  residence, 
or  in  that  part  of  the  Palatine  lands  which  had  fallen  to  his 
inheritance.  But  at  the  close  of  the  century,  or  within  the  next 
twenty  or  thirty  years,  probably  fully  one-fourth  of  all  the 
Protestant  churches  in  the  Empire  had  gone  over  fully  to  that 
party.  And  yet  this  was  such  a  natural  result  as  could  not 
possibly  fail  to  follow.  Already  during  the  preliminary  trans- 
actions about  the  reception  of  the  Formula,  which  took  place 
before  its  publication,  the  preachers  of  numerous  churches,  as 
those  of  Hesse-Cassel,  Nassau,  Anhalt  and  Zweibriicken,  had 
declared  most  distinctly  that  they  would  never  allow  the  hypo- 
thesis of  ubiquity  to  be  thrust  upon  them,  either  as  an  auxiliary 
idea  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper,  or  as  a  defining  idea  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ ;  and  yet,  .just  as  decidedly,  in 
part,  did  they  declare  that  they  were  bent  upon  holding  and 
confessing  in  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrament  the  genuine  Luth- 
eran presence  of  Christ  in  the  language  of  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession, yea,  even  in  the  unaltered  Confession.  Thus  they  suffi- 
ciently legitimated  themselves  as  genuine  members  of  that 
('hurch  which  had  made  this  Confession  her  own,  and  had 
hitherto  made  nothing  else  than  its  reception  the  condition  of 
her  fellowship.  But  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  belief  on  that 
ubiquity  is  now  ( nstamped  on  the  creed  of  the  Liitheran  Church. 
By  this,  also,  it  was  proclaimed  that  all  those  who  do  not  accept 


SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF   CONCORD.  515 

it  are  no  longer  members  of  the  Lutheran  Church.  Soon  it  was 
loudly  declared  that  those  could  no  longer  be  sharers  in  the 
benefits  of  the  Religious  Peace,  since  that  had  been  concluded 
alone  with  the  Lutheran  party.  They  were  told  to  their  faces 
that  they  could  be  regarded  as  nothing  better  than  Calvinists. 
Yea,  they  Avere  now  generally  distinguished  by  the  name  of 
Crypto-Calvinists.  Hence,  what  could  be  more  natural  than 
that  indignation  and  bitterness,  and  at  the  same  time  prudence 
and  self-protection  should  in  a  short  time  cast  many  of  them 
c<?mpletel5^  into  the  arms  of  the  Calvinists,  and  now  really  for 
the  first  time  should  make  of  them  the  very  thing  which  hitherto, 
with  the  greatest  injustice,  they  had  been  proclaimed? 

"Thus  it  happened,  and  it  happened  so  according  to  the  most 
natural  course  of  things,  that  the  very  party  which,  first  of  all, 
they  desired  to  suppress  in  Germany  by  means  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord — that  the  Calvinistic  party  now  for  the  first  time 
gained  also  firm  footing  here,  and  secured  for  itself  forever  the 
continuance  of  its  existence.  This  was  the  unfortunate  conse- 
quence which  on  the  one  hand  came  to  the  Lutheran  Church 
from  the  movement.  But  on  the  other  hand,  its  theology  secured 
the  advantage  that  now  for  a  century  and  a  half  it  remained 
fixed  on  the  point  on  which  it  had  been  firmly  bound  by  means 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord. ' '  * 

It  will  be  perceived  that  these  historians  agree  in  regard  to  the 
essential  facts.  Conclusions  essentially  difi^erent  from  theirs 
could  not  have  been  legitimately  drawn  from  the  sources  of  infor- 
mation which  were  in  their  hands.  Subsequent  investigations, 
with  additional  sources  of  knoAvledge  in  hand,  have  not  only  con- 
firmed, but  have  widened  the  scope  of  their  conclusions.  After 
careful  and  prolonged  examination  of  by  far  the  larger  part  of 
the  official  and  other  trustworthy  literature  in  connection  with 
the  composition,  subscription  and  introduction  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  and  also  of  very  much  of  the  controversial  literature 
which  followed  its  introduction — much  of  it  not  known  to  Mos- 
heim  and  Planck — we  hold  the  following  propositions  to  be  his- 
torically incontrovertible : 

1.  The  Formula  of  Concord  was  forced  upon  the  churches 
by  the  Princes  in  the  manner  described  in  a  preceding  part  of 
this  chapter.  Under  the  circumstances  the  superintendents, 
theologians,  pastors  and  teachers  had  little  or  no  option  in  the 
matter.  In  some  instances  the  alternative  was:  Subscribe  or 
*  Geschichte  der  Protest.  Theologie,  etc.,  pp.   19  et  seqq. 


516  SUBSCRIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONXORD. 

quit  the  country.     In  other  instances  the  alternative  was:  Sub- 
scribe or  suffer  dismission  from  office. 

2.  The  chief  objections  raised  against  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord were  the  hypothesis  of  ubiquity,  and  the  uses  made  of  that 
hypothesis  as  a  Ijasis  of  the  doctrine  of  the  real  bodily  presence 
of  Christ  in  the  Lord's  Supper;  whereas  it  was  contended  and 
shown  that  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity  was  not  a  part  of  the  doc- 
trinal consensus  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

3.  The  great  majority  of  the  Lutheran  churches  which  re- 
jected the  Formula  of  Concord  vindicated  their  Lutheran  char- 
acter by  appealing  to  the  older  Lutheran  confessions  and  by 
continuing  to  use  their  Lutheran  orders  of  worship. 

4.  The  Formula  of  Concord  was  the  cause  of  the  most  bitter 
controversies,  dissensions  and  alienations.  The  position  taken  by 
adherents  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  that  this  document  is  the 
true  historical  and  logical  Explanation  of  the  older  confessions, 
and  is  therefore  the  test  and  touchstone  of  Lutheranism,  had  the 
effect,  as  one  extreme  generates  a  counter-extreme,  of  driving 
many  individual  Lutherans  and  many  Lutheran  churches  into 
the  Calvinistic  fold,  as  that  fold  was  represented  in  Germany 
by  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  as  the  chief  confession  of  faith. 

And  now,  in  the  presence  of  these  propositions,  which  can  be 
established,  and  must  be  established,  by  every  historian  who 
searches  and  writes  in  the  interest  of  historical  science,  and  not 
for  the  purpose  of  supporting  a  prepossession,  the  question 
naturally  arises.  Did  the  Formula  of  Concord  do  more  harm 
than  good?  The  answer  which  the  dogmatician  would  give  to 
this  question  will  be  determined  by  his  attitude  toward  the  dis- 
tinguishing dogmatic  features  of  the  Formula  itself.  But  the 
question  is  one  for  historical  solution  by  the  use  of  all  the  facts 
involved.  Any  effort  made  wisely  and  conscientiously  to  abate 
and  to  terminate  doctrinal  controversies  in  the  Church  is,  in 
the  abstract,  worthy  of  all  connnendation.  But  the  execution 
of  such  an  effort  must  always  be  considered  in  relation  to  the 
concrete  methods  and  results.  The  history  itself  must  constitute 
the  basis  of  judgment.  To  say  that  the  divisions  and  separa- 
tions would  have  come  anyhow,  is  to  beg  the  question.  INIany 
of  the  controversies  of  the  fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  decades  of 
the  sixteenth  century  had  run  their  course  and  had  disappeared 
below  the  horizon.  Even  the  synergistic  controversy  is  generally 
represented  as  having  run  its  course  by  the  year  1567,  though 
u7i(loubtedlv  resonances  of  it  could  still  be  heard.     The  conti'o- 


SUBSCKIPTION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF    CONCORD.  517 

versy  on  the  Lord's  Supper  had  to  a  large  extent  been  extin- 
guished by  the  downfall  of  Crypto-Calvinism  in  Electoral  Sax- 
ony. It  is  certain  that  the  distractions  and  alienations  at  the 
middle  of  the  seventies  had  to  a  large  extent  subsided.  This  is 
clearly  implied  in  the  Proposition  which  the  Elector  of  Saxony 
laid  before  the  Lichtenberg  Convention  in  February,  1576,  in 
which  it  is  declared  that  of  the  originators  of  the  strife  some 
are  dead  and  others  have  been  used  up  bj'  controversy,  and  have 
probably  become  more  tractable.* 

The  bitterness  and  the  alienation  Avere  not  as  great  as  they 
had  been.  The  Augsburg  Confession,  and,  in  nmny  instances 
with  it,  the  other  older  confessions,  still  constituted^the  bond  of 
Lutheran  unity,  and  distinguished  the  Lutherans  from  the 
Roman  Catholics  and  the  Calvinists.  Proof  of  this  lies  in  the 
fact  that  the  Lutherans  were  called,  and  were  known  as,  ad- 
herents of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  The  vast  majority  of  Luth- 
erans were  still  loyal  to  the  historical  teaching  of  those  confes- 
sions. The  Gospel  was  preached  purely,  and  the  sacraments  were 
administered  according  to  the  Gospel.  The  same  bonds  that 
constitute  Lutheran  unity  in  Germany  to-day  constituted  it  in 
Germany  in  the  fifties,  sixties  and  seventies  of  the  sixteenth 
century;  and  as  those  bonds  did  not  then  restrain  the  Lutheran 
theologians  from  controversy  and  strife,  so  they  do  not  restrain 
Lutheran  theologians  from  controversy  and  strife  to-day. 

But  the  controversies  in  the  Lutheran  Church  during  the  first 
half  century  of  her  existence  no  more  destroyed  the  essential 
unity  of  the  Lutheran  Church  and  the  essential  identity  of 
Lutheranism,  than  the  same  are  destroyed  by  tlie  controversies 
in  the  Lutheran  Church  of  the  twentieth  century.  There  was  a 
Lutheran  consensus  then,  clearly  defined,  without  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  just  as  there  is  a  Lutheran  consensus  now,  without 
reference  to  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Disagreements  among 
Lutherans  to-day  on  points  of  doctrine  or  Articles  of  Faith  em- 
braced in  the  older  confessions  do  not  now  drive  Lutherans  into 
the  ranks  of  the  Calvinists.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that 
the  disagreements  of  Lutherans  in  the  fifties,  sixties  and  seven- 
ties of  the  sixteenth  century  would  have  done  so.  It  was  the 
introduction  by  authority,  and  often  by  compulsion,  of  new 
dogmatic  explanations  as  tests,  together  with  the  bitter  denuncia- 
tions and  persecutions  that  followed,  which  caused  such  large 
secessions  from  the  Lutheran  ranks.  A  new  cause  of  strife,  one 
*  Hutter,  Chap.  IX.,  p.   77. 


518  SUBSCRIf'TION    TO    THE    FORMULA    OF   CONCORD. 

more  energetically  and  influentially  pressed,  began  to  operate. 
Hence,  taking  into  account  the  bitter  controversies  to  which 
the  Formula  gave  rise,  the  secessions  from  the  Lutheran  Church, 
of  which  it  was  the  direct  cause,  the  hard  and  dry  orthodoxism 
which  it  produced,  together  with  the  attendant  dead  formalism 
of  the  congregations,  and  the  Lutheran  schisms  which  in  these 
days  are  directly  traceable  to  its  expositions — taking  all  those 
things  into  account,  we  believe  that  the  impartial  verdict  of  his- 
tory will  be  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  has  done  more  harm 
than  it  has  done  good,  and  that  the  Lutheran  Church  would  be 
numerically  stronger,  more  closely  united  and  more  aggressively 
active,  had  the  Formula  of  Concord  never  been  written.  It  was 
called  Formula  of  Concord  while  it  was  in  course  of  preparation, 
and  with  reference  to  the  end  in  view.  The  word  CONCORDIA 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  Book  of  Concord  of  which  the  Formula 
forms  a  very  large  part.  But  at  no  time  has  it  been  an  instru- 
ment of  concord  for  the  entire  Lutheran  Church.  Its  unrecon- 
ciled antitheses  have  from  time  to  time  started  new  controversies 
in  the  Lutheran  Church;  and  the  spirit  of  controversy  and  con- 
demnation which  it  breathes  in  the  negativa  connected  with  every 
article  except  one  (the  IX.).  and  which  it  has  communicated 
to  so  many  of  its  adherents,  has  helped  to  make  the  Lutheran 
Church  the  most  controversial  of  all  the  Protestant  communions. 


CHAPTER   XXIX. 

THE   BOOK   OF   CONCORD. 

The  Book  of  Concord  is  the  collection  of  the  iSymholical  Writ- 
ings of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  ChurcJi.  and  was  published 
officially  at  Dresden,  June  25,  1580,  or  just  fifty  years  after  the 
delivery  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  All  the  parts  of  which 
the  book  is  composed,  except  the  Formula  of  Concord,  had  been 
long  in  print  in  various  forms  and  in  various  relations.  Under 
the  direction  of  Jacob  Andreae,  assisted  by  Archdeacon  Peter 
Glaser  and  Dean  Caspar  Fiiger  of  the  Kreuzkirche  in  Dresden, 
the  printing  began  as  early  as  in  the  year  1578. 

1.     The  Editio  Prince ps. 

Martin  Chemnitz,  in  a  very  long  letter,  dated  November  7, 
1580,  speaks  of  two  editions  of  the  Book  of  Concord.*  Professor 
Kolde  is  of  the  opinion  that,  "speaking  accurately,  only  one 
official  Dresden  edition  appeared  in  the  year  1580,  the  exemplars 
of  which,  as  known  to  us,  show  in  parts  very  considerable  differ- 
ences. ' '  t  He  bases  his  opinion  on  information  furnished  by 
Poly  carp  Leyser,  and  regards  this  information  as  in  essential 
agreement  with  the  repi'esentations  made  by  Chemnitz.  Leyser 
reports  that  the  printing  was  conducted  hastily;  that  single 
sheets  were  printed  and  sent  to  individuals ;  that  objections  were 
raised  by  theologians  and  Princes,  some  on  account  of  individual 
parts,  and  some  on  account  of  typographical  errors.  This  led 
to  the  reprinting  of  isolated  sheets,  which  were  sent  to  individ- 
uals. But  not  all  who  received  these  had,  in  binding,  put  them 
in  the  places  of  the  defective  sheets;  also  the  printers  put  out 
mixed  exemplars. 

Professor  Kolde  names  the  following  as  the  most  important 
differences : 

"1.  Out  of  regard  for  the  people  of  Upper  Germany,  espe- 
cially for  the  Elector  of  the  Palatinate,  who  had  taken  offense 
at  the  Exorcism  in  Luther's  Order  for  Baptism,  the  Dresden 
Consistory,  under  the  principle  that  such  things  belong  not  to 

*  Hutter,  f  ol.  360  et  seqq. 

t  Einleitung,  LXXX.    See  He^jpe,  IV.,  221  et  seqq. 

(519) 


520  '  THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD. 

doctrine,  but  to  ceremonies,  resolved  to  omit  the  Order  for  Bap- 
tism and  the  Order  for  Marriage.  But  when  the  sheets  in  ques- 
tion became  known,  objection  Avas  raised  by  the  Elector  of  Bran- 
denburg, Duke  William  of  Liineburg,  and  especially  by  Chem- 
nitz. The  Elector  ordered  their  restoration.  During  the  nego- 
tiations Chemnitz,  in  order  to  satisfy  all,  proposed  that  'Luther's 
Small  Catechism  should  be  so  printed  in  the  Book  of  Concord 
that  the  Order  for  Marriage  and  the  Order  for  Baptism  could 
be  introduced  or  could  be  removed.'  As  this  plan  was  pursued, 
there  came  to  be  exemplars  which  contain  these  two  parts,  those 
(which  were  printed  first)  which  simply  omitted  them,  and 
those  which  indicated  their  omission  and  the  place  where  they 
were  to  be  introduced  if  desired.  And  this  was  done  in  such  a  way 
that  the  last  page  of  the  Small  Catechism  carries  at  the  same  time 
the  page  numbers  169, 170, 171, 172, 173.  2.  Some  exemplars  have 
as  title  over  Tlie  Catalogue  of  Testimonies  the  word  Appendix, 
while  in  the  case  of  others,  at  the  desire  of  the  Elector  of  the 
Palatinate,  because  these  had  not  been  a  matter  of  conference 
(as  others  suppose  in  order  not  to  assign  to  these  [Testimonies] 
an  authority  equal  to  that  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  itself), 
the  word  Appendix  was  omitted.  3.  In  the  Formula  of  Concord 
(p.  269a,  ]\Iiiller.  595,  compare  readings)  the  citation  is  made 
from  Article  XX.  of  the  Augustana  according  to  the  quarto  edi- 
tion of  1531  as  it  is  in  the  manuscript.  But  Chemnitz,  who 
called  attention  to  the  discrepancy  of  the  text  printed  in  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  which  is  based  on  the  jMayence  manu- 
script, occasioned  the  reprinting  also  of  this  sheet.  The  result 
was  a  new  difference  of  exemplars,  especially  one  that  has  been 
paraded  by  the  enemy."* 

Professor  Kolde  also  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  some 
copies  have  at  the  close,  after  the  subscriptions,  a  separate  page, 
which  contains  two  passages  from  the  IX.  Psalm,  together  with 
a  printer's  mark  bearing  the  names  ]VIatthes  Stockel,  and  Gimel 
Bergen  and  after  the  printer's  mark  the  false  date  M.D.LXXXI., 
which  in  other  exemplars  has  been  falsely  corrected  to  read 
M.D.LXXIX.  We  have  in  our  hand  at  this  moment  a  copy  with 
such  a  separate  page," with  such  a  printer's  mark,  and  with  such 
names,  but  the  date  given  as  the  printer's  mark  is  1579,  fol- 
lowed by :  Gedruckt  zu  Dresden/  durch  Matthes  Stockel.  Anno 
M.D.LXXX.,  that  is,  "Printed  at  Dresden  by  Matthes  Stockel," 
etc. 

*  EinJeitung,  p.  Ixxx,  et  seqq. 


THE    BOOK    OF   CONCORD.  521 

The  Feuerlin-Riederer  describes  seven  exemplars  of  the  Book 
of  Concord,  printed  at  Dresden  in  the  year  1580.  These  all 
differ,  in  one  way  or  in  another,  from'  each  other.  But  it  is  im- 
possible to  believe  that  seven  separate  editions  were  printed  at 
Dresden  in  the  same  year.  Balthaser  had  in  hand  an  exemplar 
that  had  belonged  to  Duke  Ulrich.  It  contains  the  Order  for 
Marriage  and  the  Order  for  Baptism.  He  regards  this  as  the 
first  impression.  lie  had  in  hand  another  exemplar,  which  omits 
the  orders  for  ^Marriage  and  Baptism,  and  differs  here  and  there 
in  other  unimportant  particulars  from  the  preceding.  He  also 
had  a  third  exemplar  in  hand,  which  differs  from  both  the  others. 
It  nowhere  exhibits  the  date  1579,  as  is  done  by  both  the  others, 
though  all  three  bear:  Dresden,  MDLXXX.  on  the  chief  title- 
page.  The  copy  in  the  hands  of  the  writer  differs  from  all 
three  described  above,  and  comes  in  order,  he  thinks,  between 
Balthaser 's  second  and  third,  in  that  in  a  couple  of  places  it  con- 
tains the  date  1579.  and  in  other  test  places  it  has  a  text  that 
is  identical  with  Balthaser 's  third  exemplar.  This  shows  that 
the  corrections  were  not  all  made  at  the  same  time.  But  we 
agree  with  Professor  Kolde  in  concluding  that,  as  with  the 
Editio  Princeps  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  so  with  the  Book 
of  Concord,  there  are  not  different  editions,  but  one  Editio 
Princeps — "only  one  official  Dresden  edition  of  the  year  1580" — 
though  there  are  important  textual  deviations  here  and  there.* 

2.     The  Contents  of  the  Book  of  Concord. 

We  describe  the  Book  of  Concord  according  to  the  exemplar 
of  the  Editio  Princeps  now  in  our  hands. 

1.  The  title,  rendered  into  English,  is  as  follows:  CON- 
CORDIA, ninv  Christian,  Repeated,  Unanimous  Confession 
of  the  following  named  Electors,  Princes,  and  Estates  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  and  of  the  Doctrine  and  Faith  of  the 
Theologians  who  have  subscribed  to  the  same  at  the  end  of  the 
Book.  Together  with  an  Explanation,  well-founded  and  based 
on  the  Word  of  God  as  the  sole  Rule,  of  some  Articles,  which, 
after  the  death  of  the  Sainted  Dr.  ]\Iartin  Luther,  came  into 

*  See  Anton.  II.,  6  ei  seqq.  Since  the  preceding  description  of  exemplara 
of  the  first  Dresden  edition  Avas  written,  another  exemplar  of  the  same  edi- 
tion has  come  into  the  hands  of  the  writer.  This  differs  from  those  de- 
scribed. In  some  places  this  edition  has  italicized  letters  where  the  other 
edition  in  the  writer's  hands  has  the  ordinary  upright  letters,  and  vice 
versa.  In  some  instances  the  colophons  are  diiferent.  The  names  of  the 
subscribers  were  not  printed  from  the  same  forms.  But  the  title-pages  of 
the  two  are  identical. 


522  THE    BOOK    OK    CONCORD. 

discussion  and  controversy.  By  unanimous  agreement  and  com- 
mand of  the  said  Electors.  Princes  and  Estates,  put  into  print 
for  the  instruction  and  warning  of  their  lands,  churches,  schools, 
and  descendants. 

With  the  privilege  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

Dresden.    IM.D.LXXX. 

2.  The  Preface,  which  is  signed  by  3  Electors.  22  Princes, 
including  2  Counts  who  are  ranked  with  the  Princes.  22  Counts, 
4  Barons  and  35  Cities,  was  written  by  Jacob  Andreae.  at  least 
in  outline,  and  was  at  first  communicated  to  Duke  Julius  and  to 
a  few  other  Estates.  It  was  adopted  at  a  convention  held  at 
Jiiterbogk  in  January,  1579,  and  in  February  of  the  same  year 
it  was  revised  by  some  theologians  and  civil  counsellors  at 
Cloister-Bergen.* 

The  Preface  recognizes  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  certain 
symbol  of  those  times,  especially  in  the  articles  of  faith,  which 
have  to  do  with  the  Roman  Catholics ;  holds  it  to  be  the  duty 
of  the  subscribers  to  guard  against  false  doctrines ;  alludes 
respectfully  to  the  diets  of  Frankfort  (1558)  and  Naumburg 
(1561)  ;  recites  briefly  the  history  of  the  construction  of  the 
Christian  Book  of  Concord;  expresses  the  determination  to  adhere 
to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  to  that  and  to  that  alone  which  was 
delivered  to  the  Emperor  in  the  year  1530,  and  which,  in  the 
original,  is  still  preserved  in  the  Imperial  Archives ;  says  that 
"the  other  edition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession"  had  been  used 
to  conceal  errors,  especially  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper; 
but  it  is  added:  "We  never  understood  nor  received  the  other 
edition  as  opposed  to  the  first  delivered  Augsburg  Confession, 
nor  have  we  rejected  or  wished  to  condemn  other  very  useful 
writings  of  Master  Philip  IMelanchthon,  also  of  Brentz,  Urban 
Regius,  Pomeranius  and  others,  in  so  far  as  they  agree  with  the 
rule  contained  in  the  Book  of  Concord ; "  in  the  administration 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  it  inculcates  adherence  to  the  words  of 
institution ;  it  warns  against  the  use  of  abstract  terms  in  the 
doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ.  The  majesty  of  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  does  not  exist  apart  from  the  personal  union. 
It  was  not  the  design  of  the  subscribers  to  condemn  those  who 
go  astray  through  simplicity  of  mind,  but  to  condemn  fanatics 
and  obstinate  teachers.     They  intend  that  in  their  dominions, 

*  Anton,  p.  242;  Loeseher,  ill.,  294:  Rehtmeyer,  III.,  469.  470. 


THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD.  523 

cliurclies  and  schools,  no  doctrine  shall  be  taught  except  that 
which  is  founded  on  the  Word  of  God  and  is  contained  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  in  the  Apology.  That  they  may  carry 
out  such  intention  they  have  resolved  to  publish  the  Book 
of  Concord.  They  know  that  the  doctrine  which  they  wish  to 
inculcate  is  embraced  in  the  three  sjanbols,  in  the  Augsburg 
Confession  of  the  year  1530,  in  the  Apology,  in  the  Schmalkald 
Articles  and  in  Luther's  Catechisms.  Finally,  they  express  the 
determination  earnestly  to  maintain  the  work  of  Concord  by  the 
\asitation  of  churches  and  .schools,  by  an  oversight  of  the  print- 
ing offices,  and  by  other  salutary  means,  such  as  may  suit  each 
place.  As  evidence  of  all  this  they  sign  their  names  with  hearty 
unanimity  and  affix  their  .seals. 

3.  "The  three  Chief  Symbols  or  Confessions  of  the  Faith 
of  Christ  unanimously  employed  in  the  Church,"  that  is,  the 
Apostles',  the  Nicene  and  the  Athanasian  Creeds. 

4.  "Confession  of  the  Faith  of  some  Princes  and  cities 
Delivered  to  the  Imperial  ^lajestv  at  Augsburg.  Anno 
M.D.XXX." 

Although  in  the  Preface  the  Princes  had  again  and  again 
declared  that  they  adhere  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  which  was 
delivered  to  Charles  V.  in  the  year  1530,  they  nevertheless 
insert  in  their  Book  of  Concord  a  vicious  copy  of  an  unauthentic 
codex,  which  had  been  imposed  on  the  Elector  of  Saxony  by 
the  Elector  of  Mayence  and  his  library  officials.  This  copy  of 
the  Confession  is  essentially  identical  with  that  which  had 
been  inserted  in  the  Corpus  Brandenhurgicum,  1572.  Instead 
of  being  "from  the  true  original,"  it  was  copied  from  a  codex 
that  represents  the  Confession  in  a  yet  unfinished  state,  and  that 
has  no  signatures.  It  therefore  is  not  the  "unaltered"  Augs- 
burg Confession  or  the  confession  in  the  form  in  which  it  was  de- 
livered to  the  Emperor,  neither  does  it  represent  the  editio  prin- 
ceps  published  by  ]\Ielanchthon  in  the  year  1531.  It  differs  from 
this  latter  in  about  four  hundred  places,  the  great  majority  of 
which  are  entirely  without  material  significance,  but  some  of 
them  do  materially  affect  the  sense.  The  text  contained  in  the 
Book  of  Concord  is  called  Texfus  Receptus* 

4.  "The  Apology  of  the  Confession  translated  from  the 
German  by  Justus  Jonas."  This  is  a  free  rendering,  made 
with    the    a.ssistance    of    ^Melanchthon,    from    the    Latin    editio 

*  See  pp.  223  et  seqq. ;  also  Tsr-haekert,  Die  Unveratiderte  Augsburgische 
Konfession.  pp.  62.  fi4  et  .sr^jy. 


524  THE    BOOK    OF   CONCORD. 

prince ps,  which  appeared  in  connection  with  the  Latin  editio 
princeps  of  the  Confession. 

5.  "Articles  of  Christian  Doctrine  Avhich  Avere  to  have  been 
delivered  by  our  party  at  the  Council  of  ^lantua,  or  wherever 
it  should  be  held,  stating  what  we  could  accept  or  surrender,  or 
not,  etc.  Written  by  Dr.  ]\rartin  Luther.  Anno  1537."  These 
are  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  which  appeared  in  print  first  in 
the  year  1538.  They  consist  of  a  Preface  by  Luther,  of  Part  I., 
which  treats  of  the  Divine  Majesty,  Part  IL,  which  treats  of 
the  office  and  work  of  Christ,  Part  III.,  which  treats  of  articles 
which  might  be  discussed  among  learned  and  sensible  men, 
together  with  ^lelanchthon 's  tractate  on  the  power  and  author- 
ity of  the  Pope,  Avritten  also  at  Schmalkald. 

6.  "Enchiridion.  The  Small  Catechism  of  Dr.  ]\Iartin 
Luther,  for  plain  pastors  and  preachers."  Besides  the  usual 
five  chief  parts  of  the  Catechism  we  have  the  Form  for  Confes- 
sion, Morning  and  Evening  Prayers,  the  Benedicite  and  Gratias, 
the  Table  of  Duties.  (The  Formula  for  ]Marriage  and  that  for 
Baptism  are  omitted  in  our  exemplar). 

7.  "The  Large  Catechism,  German,  of  Doctor  Martin 
Luther." 

8.  "Summary  Statement  of  the  Articles  controverted  among 
the  theologians  of  the  xVugsburg  Confession,  Explained  and 
Settled  in  a  Christian  manner,  in  the  following  Repetition,  ac- 
cording to  the  Direction  of  the  "Word  of  God." 

With  the  Privilege  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

Dresden.    1579." 
This  is  the  Epitome  of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

9.  "Solid,  Clear,  Correct  and  final  Repetition  and  Explana- 
tion of  some  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  about  Avhich 
there  has  been  controversy  for  a  long  time  among  some  theolo- 
gians attached  to  the  same  (Confession),  settled  and  adjusted 
according  to  the  Word  of  God,  and  summary  statement  of  our 
Christian  doctrine." 

With  the  Privilege  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony. 

Dresden. 

Anno  M.D.LXXIX. 

This  is  the  Solid  Declarotion,  and  is  followed  by  the  Index 
and  by  the  names  of  the  eight  thousand  or  more  theologians. 


THE    BOOK    OF    COXCORD.  525 

who  signed  the  Formula  of  Concord,  by  two  passages  from  the 
ninth  Psalm,  by  a  wood  cut  with  the  names:  Matthes  Stockei, 
Gimel  Bergen.     1579. 

Printed  at  Dresden  by  INIatthes  Stockel. 

Anno  M.D.LXXX. 

10.  "APPENDIX.  Catalogue  op  Testmonies  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  of  the  Teachers  of  the  ancient  pure  Church," 
etc. 

Printer's  mark  without  name. 

Dresden. 
1580. 

Such  are  the  contents,  together  with  a  brief  description,  of  the 
copy  of  the  "one  official  Dresden  Edition"  of  the  Concordia 
or  Book  of  Concord  which  is  in  the  hands  of  the  writer.  Bar- 
ring the  Formula  for  ^Marriage  and  that  for  Baptism  it  differs 
only  redactionally  from  other  exemplars  of  the  official  Dresden 
edition,  which  must  always  be  regarded  as  standard.  In  the 
year  1580  an  edition  in  quarto  was  published  at  ]\Iagdeburg, 
and  one  in  folio  at  Tubingen  without  the  Formulas  for  Mar- 
riage and  Baptism,  and  with  differences  in  the  subscriptions.* 

3.     TJie  Latin  Text. 

In  the  year  1578  Luke  Osiander  began  to  translate  the 
Formula  of  Concord  into  Latin.  His  undertaking  was  finished 
by  Jacob  Heerbrand,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Tiibingen.  In 
the  year  1580  a  Latin  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord  was  pub- 
lished at  Leipzig,  in  quarto,  by  Nicholas  Selneccer  "with  the 
grace  and  privilege  of  the  Elector  of  Saxony."  The  title-page 
bears  also  the  declaration  that  the  Book  is  published  by  the 
joint  counsel  and  command  of  the  Electors,  Princes,  and  Orders 
of  the  Empire.  In  the  order  of  parts  and  in  contents  it  corre- 
sponds exactly  to  the  German  eddtio  princeps  described  above, 
except  that  it  has  no  Index,  and  that  the  names  of  the  signers 
follow  the  "Appendix"  or  Catalogue  of  Witnesses,  and  close 
the  book.  In  the  Preface  it  is  declared  :  ' '  AVe  testify  distinctly 
that  we  wish  to  embrace  only  that  first  Augsburg  Confession 
which  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  at  that  cele- 
brated Diet  of  Augsburg  in  the  year  1530,  that  alone  (we  say) 

*  See  Kolde,  Einleituug.  p.  Ixxv.,  and  Feuerlin-Riederer,  pp.  10  et  seqq. 


526  THE   BOOK    OF    CONCOKD. 

and  no  other."  But  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion as  printed  in  this  Latin  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord 
is  a  copy  of  Melanchthon 's  octavo  edition  of  the  Confession 
pHnted  at  Wittenberg  in  the  Autumn  of  1531.  The  same- is 
true  of  the  Apology.  It  is  a  copy  of  that  edition  which  had  ac- 
companied the  publication  of  the  octavo  edition  of  the  Confes- 
sion ;  in  other  words,  a  revised  or  altered  edition  of  the  Apology. 
Hence  so  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  this  first  Latin  edition 
of  the  Book  of  Concord  contains  "that  first  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion," etc.,  it  is  true,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  it  contains  an 
Augsburg  Confession  that  has  been  twice  changed,  and  an  Apol- 
ogy that  has  been  once  changed — proof  this,  that  the  theolo- 
gians of  that  period  knew  very  little  about  the  different  editions 
of  the  Confession  and  Apology. 

This  edition  contains  also  other  defects.  Hence  it  was  not  ap- 
proved, and  the  Elector  August  seems  to  have  forbidden  its 
sale.*  Selneccer  prepared  a  new  translation  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord,  which  was  published  in  his  German-Latin  edition  of 
the  Book  of  Concord  in  1582.  Even  this  translation  did  not 
satisfy  the  Brunswick  theologians  assembled  at  the  Quedlin- 
burg  Colloquy,  December  24,  1582,  to  January  31,  1583.  Under 
the  direction  of  Chemnitz  this  translation  was  thoroughly  re- 
vised and  was  inserted  in  the  new  edition  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, which  was  published  by  official  authority  at  Leipzig  in 
1584,  as  an  authentic  translation  of  the  German  text.  There- 
fore the  Latin  text  of  the  Book  of  Concord  has  the  same  author- 
ity as  has  the  German  text.    It  is  the  Latin  textus  receptus. 

In  the  Preface  to  this  textus  receptus  of  the  Book  of  Concord, 
we  find  the  same  declaration  as  in  the  Selneccer  edition  about 
"that  first  Augsburg  Confession,"  etc.,  and  in  both  editions. 
in  The  Compendions  Form  of  Doctrine,  we  have  the  declaration. 
"We  embrace  that  first  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession'' 
(Miiller,  p.  569).  But  the  Augsburg  Confession  found  in  this 
authentic  Latin  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord  is  a  copy  of 
Melanchthon 's  editio  princeps.  or  first  printed  edition.  There 
is  no  reason,  however,  why  it  should  be  called  "that  first  un- 
altered Augsburg,"  because  we  know  that  Melanchthon  in  pre- 
paring this  edition  made  it  differ  in  many  places  from  the  Con- 
fession (German  and  Latin)  as  the  same  was  delivered  to  the 
Emperor  Charles  V.  in  the  year  1530.t     The  Apology  as  printed 

*  Kolde,  Einlfiiung,  p.  Ixxxi. 

t  See  pp.  218  et  seqq.  above.    Also  Tschackert,  ut  supra,  pp.  59  ef  seqq. 


THE    BOOK    OF   CONCORD.  527 

in  this  authentic  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord  corresponds 
to  that  which  was  first  printed  with  the  edifio  prince ps  of  the 
Confession  in  the  rear  1531. 

This  authentic  edition  of  the  Book  of  Concord  has  been  re- 
printed separately,  and  in  connection  with  the  German  authentic 
text.  In  the  year  1602  an  edition  was  published  in  octavo  with 
a  Preface  by  Christian  II.,  Elector  of  Saxony.  "Almost  all  the 
subsequent  Latin  editions  have  followed  this  edition,  even  to 
the  numbering  of  the  pages."*  Eechenberg's  edition,  first  in 
1678.  and  Hase's  edition,  first  in  1827,  are  regarded  as  standard. 
Among  the  bi-lingual  editions,  that  published  by  J.  T.  J^Iiiller 
in  1847  (tenth  edition  in  1907)  holds  perhaps  the  highest  rank. 

The  Book  of  Concord  has  been  translated  into  the  Dutch,  the 
Swedish,  the  Danish,  the  Norwegian,  and  the  English  languages. 
It  has  called  forth  a  large  amount  of  literature  pro  et  contra, 
the  better  part  of  which  may  be  read  with  profit  by  the  theologian 
and  by  the  ecclesiastical  historian.!  It  is  not  probable  that  the 
time  will  ever  come  when  the  Church  of  Christ  on  earth  will 
cease  to  be  affected  more  or  less  by  the  Book  of  Concord. 

4.     Suhscriptio)!  to  the  Book  of  Concord. 

AVe  must  distinguish  the  Formula  of  Concord  from  the  Book 
of  Concord,  though,  since  the  publication  of  the  latter  in  the 
year  1580,  the  history  of  each  has  been  closely  identified  with 
that  of  the  other.  Indeed,  a  Book  of  Concord  does  not  exist 
without  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  it  is  the  latter,  in  the 
main,  that  determines  the  minds  of  men  for  or  against  the 
former.  Hence  when  we  speak  of  the  Book  of  Concord  in  the 
Church  we  might  almost  as  well  speak  of  the  Formula  of 
Concord  in  the  Church.  That  the  Book  of  Concord  excited 
disputes  in  the  Church  at  once  after  its  publication  has  been 
already  shown.  But  objections  arose  in  places  from  which  noth- 
ing of  the  kind  had  been  expected.  When  subscription  was 
demanded  unqualifiedly  from  the  faculties  of  Leipzig,  Wit- 
tenberg and  Jena,  resistance  was  made  at  once.  Many  of  the 
Leipzig  professors  who  had  subscribed  the  Augsburg  Confession 
and  the  A.pology  declared  that  they  were  perfectly  willing  to 
subscribe  the  Schmalkald  Articles  and  Luther's  Catechisms,  but 
that  they  could  not  possibly  agree  with  the  Formula  of  Con- 

*  Fenerlin-Eiederer.  p.  12. 

t  For  titles  of  the  most  important  older  literature  on  the  Book  of  ( 'on- 
cord,  see  Walch,  Introduclio,  pp.  749  et  seqq.,  and  Miiller's  Die  Symboli- 
sehen  Biicher,  x.  ed.,  p.  Ixxvii. 


528  THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD. 

cord  which  contains  the  new  doctrine  of  Ubiquity.  Some  of 
the  professors  subscribe  with  the  express  reservation  that  they 
subscribed  only  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  to  the  Apology, 
to  the  Schmalkald  Articles  and  to  Luther's  Catechisms.  Two 
of  the  professors  refused  their  subscription  absolutely,  where- 
upon they  were  dismissed  from  office.* 

When,  early  in  December,  1580,  the  report  came  to  Witten- 
berg that  the  professors  would  be  required  to  subscribe  the 
Book  of  Concord,  they  addressed  a  memorial  to  the  Elector 
August  in  which  they  gave  reasons  why  they  were  restrained 
from  complying  with  the  desire  of  their  ruler.  January  5th 
commissioners  from  the  Elector  entered  Wittenberg,  held  an 
interview"  with  the  Academic  Senate,  and  then  went  their  way. 
On  the  25th  they  returned  with  Dr.  Selneccer  and  Superintend- 
ent Avenarius  of  Zeitz,  and  during  the  following  three  days 
they  treated  with  the  professors  individually,  first  with  those 
of  least  significance,  on  the  matter  of  signing  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord. The  result  was  that  the  most  of  them  signed  the  Book. 
Many  of  them,  only  after  they  had  been  repeatedly  summoned 
and  treated  with,  consented  to  sign  conditionally.  Many  of 
them  persistingly  declared  that  they  would  resign  their  office 
before  they  would  yield  to  the  demand  of  the  commissioners. 
John  Mathesius,  the  life-long  friend  of  ^lelanchthon,  in  order 
to  escape  subscription  resigned  his  professorship.  Only  Dr. 
Wesenbeck  w^as  excused  from  subscribing.  All  who  refused  to 
subserilje  were  immediately  removed  from  the  University.v 

In  November,  1580,  the  three  Electors  sent  a  commission  in 
common,  each,  one  theologian,  and  one  civil  counsellor,  to  Jena. 
Here  they  labored  with  the  professors,  as  had  been  done  in  Leip- 
zig and  Wittenberg,  fourteen  days,  before  recognition  of  the 
Book  of  Concord  was  wrung  from  them.J 

In  the  Palatinate  the  most  stringent  measures  were  enforced 
by  Elector  Ludwig  for  the  introduction  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord.     Gymnasial   professors   and   numerous    professors   in   the 

*  Heppe,  IV^  i)p.  245  et  seqq. 

t  Heppe,  IV.,  pp.  246-2.51,  and  Beilagen  No.  ITT.,  p.  14.  Record  c.r  auto- 
grapho  in  Forstemann's  Liber  Becanorum,  pp.  59  and  60:  "All  these 
things  were  done  January  26th,  27th,  and  28th.  Then,  February  16th,  a 
mandate  was  brought  in  accordance  with  which  all  who  refused  to  subscribe 
the  Book  of  Concord  were  commanded  to  leave  the  university  without  delay, 
and  the  theological  faculty  was  enjoined  for  the  future  to  command  all  of 
whatever  profession,  in  case  they  were  to  be  numbered  among  the  professors 
of  the  university,  to  subscribe  the  Formula  of  Concord,  in  order  that  a  sure 
and  permanent  peace  in  the  matter  of  confession  might  be  preserved  be- 
tween the  professors  of  all  the  faculties." 

j:  Heppe,  ni  sHjira.  p.  250;  Beilagen,  No.  IV.,  p.  29. 


THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD.  529 

University  of  Heidelberg  refused  to  accept  it  and' resigned.  In 
other  parts  of  the  Palatinate  the  subscriptions  of  the  pastors 
and  the  teachers  was  obtained  through  commissioners,  who 
traveled  from  place  to  place  for  that  purpose.  "Almost  all  the 
preachers  subscribed  the  Book,  But  Superintendent  Schalling 
and  other  preachers  at  Amberg  declared  that  their  conscience 
restrained  them  from  subscribing  the  new  confession.  Some  of 
the  renitents  (among  them  Schalling)  were  granted  time  for 
consideration.  The  others  were  rendered  harmless  by  instantan- 
eous dismissal  from  office. ' '  * 

But  difficulties  of  another  kind  arose  in  the  Brunswiek-Liine- 
burg  dominions,  where  the  subscriptions  to  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord were  recalled  in  1583.  The  causes  were  these :  When  the 
Book  of  Concord  was  published  it  was  discovered  by  the  Helm- 
stadt  theologians  and  others  that  the  printed  exemplars  did  not 
in  all  respects  agree  with  the  copy  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
which  they  had  signed  in  manuscript ;  and  that  the  Formula  had 
been  changed  in  different  places,  which  ought  not  to  have  been 
done,  except  by  mutual  consent.  JMoreover,  the  changes  were 
exactly  such  as  would  excite  controversies  afresh.  Accordingly, 
October  23,  1580,  the  Helmstadt  theological  faculty  wrote  to 
Chemnitz  and  presented  a  list  of  places  in  which  the  printed 
exemplar  differed  from  the  manuscript  copy.j  The  latter  re- 
plied, November  7th,  that  some  of  the  differences  were  due  to 
typographical  errors,  and  that  the  others  were  of  no  impor- 
tance.t     This  answer  was  not  wholly  satisfactory  to  the  Helm- 

*  Hepi^e,  tct  supra,  pp.  251-2.55.  The  same  facts  in  regard  to  the  imposi- 
tion of  the  Book  of  Concord  on  the  Universities  and  in  the  Palatinate  are 
reported,  though  in  more  condensed  form,  by  Anton  in  his  Geschichte  der 
Concordienformel,  II.,  pp.  11  et  seqq.  He  also  reports  that  the  civil  author- 
ities of  Liibeck  sent  a  copy  of  the  Book  of  Concord  to  the  ministers  and 
school-teachers  of  the  city,  and,  as  a  perpetual  reminder  of  their  duty,  they 
had  the  following  Latin  inscription  placed  on  it  in  golden  letters:  Anno 
1580  Senatus  Lubicensis  hunc  librum  per  deputatos  suos  Commissarios  Mi- 
nistris  verbi  in  hoc  urbe  ofiferi,  et  mandari  curavit,  ut  formam  doctrinae  in 
eo  comprehensam  in  docendo  sequerentur,  idque  manuum  subscriptione  testi- 
ficarentur.  P.  12.  Anton  also  quotes  from  two  indignant  letters  which 
August  wrote  from  Dresden  when  he  learned  that  the  Wittenberg  professors 
did  not  wish  to  render  an  unqualified  subscription  to  the  Book  of  Concord. 
Among  other  things,  this:  Aber  ich  will  durch  Gottes  Hiilfe  meine  Kirchen 
und  Schulen  rein  behalten  so  lange  ich  lebe,  bey  der  Forma  Concordiae. 
Wer  mit  mir  nicht  will,  der  mag  hinfahren,  ich  begehre  sein  uicht,  etc. 
Gott  behiite  mich  und  die  Meinen  fiir  Papisten  und  Cahdnisten,  ich  habe 
es  erfaren.     P.  13. 

In  the  face  of  all  these  facts,  and  of  many  others  that  can  be  adduced,  it 
is  impossible  to  deny  that  the  Formula  of  Concord  and  the  Book  of  Concord 
were  forced  upon  churches,  preachers,  theologians  and  teachers. 

t  Letter,  etc.,  in  Hutter,  Cap.  LII..  fol.  .358  et  seqq. 

t  Letter  in  Hutter,  Cap.  LIL.  fol.  .36  et  seqq. 

.S4 


530  THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD. 

stadt  faculty,  neither  were  they  pleased  with  the  Erfurt  Apology 
of  the  Formula  of  Concord. 

5.     The  Quedlinhurg  Colloquy. 

And  now  it  was  that  a  conference  was  appointed  to  be  held  at 
Brunswick,  May  21,  1582,  between  the  Helmstadt  theologians 
and  the  three  authors  of  the  Apology,  Kirchner,  Chemnitz  and 
Selneccer,  for  the  purpose  of  settling  the  disputes.  But  Dr. 
Tilemann  Heshusius,  who  was  now  professor  of  theology  at 
Helmstadt,  interposed  obstacles,  so  that  the  proposed  conference 
was  not  held.  Finally  in  the  month  of  January,  1583,  a  colloquy 
of  theologians  and  some  civil  counsellors  was  held  at  Quedlin- 
burg  under  the  auspices  of  the  three  Electors  and  Duke  Julius. 
The  Brunswick  theologians  requested,  in  the  name  of  their 
Prince,  that  a  synod  should  be  held;  that  an  explanation  of 
Free-will,  different  from  that  given  in  the  Book  of  Concord, 
should  be  composed;  that  the  harsh  and  unpleasant  expressions 
of  Luther  be  either  omitted  or  modified ;  that  provision  be  made 
for  the  rejection  of  errors  and  errorists ;  that  an  inquiry  be  made 
about  the  changes  that  had  been  introduced  into  the  Book  of 
Concord  after  it  had  been  signed;  that  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity 
should  not  be  officially  endorsed  as  it  had  been  presented  in  the 
Erfurt  Apology.  This  last  point  was  discussed  two  days,  Janu- 
ary 14th  and  16th.  The  Brunsw^ick  theologians  complained 
especially  of  the  changes  that  had  been  made  in  the  printed 
exemplars,  more  particularly  in  the  article  on  Free-will,  and 
gave  eight  reasons  why  they  could  not  recognize  the  printed 
exemplar. 

In  the  Recess  of  the  Colloquy,  January  31,  1583,  it  was 
decided,  that  the  theologians  on  both  sides  should  refer  the 
matter  of  holding  a  synod  to  the  three  electors ;  that  the  changes 
shall  be  corrected  in  the  Apology ;  that  Luther 's  expressions  can 
be  explained  from  the  context,  and  by  other  methods;  that 
errors  and  false  teachers  can  be  condemned  when  there  is  need 
of  it ;  that  the  matter  of  changes  in  general  shall  be  deferred. 

The  Electoral  theologians  held  that  since  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord had  by  the  grace  of  God  been  published,  the  case  should 
not  be  opened  again  to  dispute.  This  was  disapproved  by  the 
Brunswick  theologians,  who  insisted  that  the  matter  be  laid  be- 
fore a  general  synod.  The  Recess  of  the  Colloquy  was  rejected  by 
the  Brunswick  civil  counsellors,  especially  the  point  in  regard  to 
the  changes  that  had  been  made  in  the  Formula  of  Concord. 


THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD.  531 

The  Brunswick  theologians  subscribed  the  Recess,  but  under 
protest.  In  regard  to  other  things  the  theologians  on  both 
sides  agreed  with  clasped  hands  not  to  publish  the  Proceedings 
of  the  Colloquy,  but  to  look  to  unitj^  and  peace. 

The  Helmstiidt  theologians  kept  their  promise  to  the  extent 
that  they  never  published  in  print  anything  touching  this  con- 
troversy, and  they  never  publicly  declared  that  they  had  be- 
come dissatisfied  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Formula  of  Concord 
as  they  had  subscribed  it.  But  they  reserved  to  themselves  the 
right  to  express  their  views  in  their  lectures  to  the  students. 
Controversies  arose,  especially  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of 
ubiquity. 

Duke  Ludwig  of  Wiirtemberg  wrote  to  Duke  Julius  of  Bruns- 
wick charging  that  the  Helmstadt  theologians  were  not  sound  in 
doctrine,  and  that  they  had  not  signed  the  Formula  of  Concord 
honestly.  In  the  year  1585  the  Helmstadt  theologians  defended 
themselves  against  the  allegation  that  they  had  forsaken  the 
Formula  of  Concord  "because  they  had  not  approved  the  un- 
founded doctrine  of  the  ubiquity  of  the  flesh  of  Christ."  This 
defense  w^as  sent  to  Duke  Ludwig  and  called  forth  a  reply  from 
the  Wiirtemberg  theologians  the  next  year.  The  Helmstadt 
theologians  replied  in  1588,  and  the  AViirtembergers  again  in 
1589.  Finally  the  Wittenberg  theologians  were  drawn  into  the 
controversy.  The  chief  subject  of  dispute  was  ubiquity,  but 
predestination  was  also  discussed.* 

At  length,  June  8,  1589,  Dr.  Daniel  Hoffmann,  Professor  of 
Theology  at  Helmstadt,  in  a  funeral  sermon  for  Duke  Julius, 
expressed  himself  as  follows : 

"His  Princely  Grace  at  the  beginning  took  an  active  interest 
in  the  work  of  Concord  and  promoted  it  at  great  cost,  anxiety 
and  trouble.  .  .  .  And,  though  some  few  scribble  against  the 
long  rejected  doctrine  of  the  Book,  yet  his  Princely  Grace  in 
accordance  with  his  Princely  steadfastness  did  not  wish  to 
depart  from  the  Book  of  Concord,  but  he  believed  that  as  under- 
stood in  this  place  it  never  contradicted  the  Confession  of  the 
Lower  Saxon  churches.  Therefore  he  did  not  approve  the 
method  of  those  who  now  trifle  with  this  Book,  and  in  order  that 
the  sound  Saxon  interpretation  might  stand  unshaken,  his 
Princely  Grace  not  only  was  not  willing  to  accept  the  Apology, 
by  which  occasion  was  given  for  strange  doctrine,  but  he  also 

*  Walch,  Introdvctio,  pp.  745,  746;  Heppe,  IV.,  316  et  seqq.,  for  much 
original  material.     Anton,  II.,  35  et  seqq. 


532  THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD. 

maintained  before  illustrious  Electors  and  Princes  that  such  a 
book  should  not  be  raised  to  the  rank  of  a  common  confession," 
to  which  Rehtmeyer  adds :  ' '  And  with  this  the  publication  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  together  with  the  Apology  in  general, lost  its 
authority  in  these  lands,  so  that  the  venerable  learned  Dr.  George 
Calixtus,  in  his  reply  to  the  declaration  from  Electoral  Saxony, 
wrote  as  follows :  '  It  is  certain  that  the  Protocol  still  exists 
from  which  it  can  be  proved  that  Duke  Julius,  the  Founder  of 
this  University,  was  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity,  and 
offered  means  and  assistance  to  those  who  should  refute  it.  I 
must  declare  that  had  I  been  obliged  to  bind  myself  uncondition- 
ally to  ubiquity  according  to  the  words  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, I  should  never  have  settled  at  Helmstadt. '  "  * 

6.     The  Book  of  Concord  and  the  Lutheran  Theology. 

The  theology  of  the  Lutheran  Church  during  the  seventeenth 
century,  known  as  the  Lutheran  Dogmatic,  was  moulded  by  the 
Book  of  Concord.  The  theologians  of  that  period  held  the  prin- 
ciple that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  suxireme  rule  of  faith  and  norm 
of  teaching,  but  in  fact  they  generally  placed  the  Symbolical 
Books  as  a  law  of  interpretation  above  the  Scriptures,  under 
the  title  analogia  fidei.  The  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  had  been 
correctly  exhibited  in  the  Symbolical  Books.  Hence  they  must 
be  interpreted  in  harmony  with  the  Symbolical  Books.  That  is, 
the  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  was  already  determined.  As  a 
consequence  Exegesis  fell  quite  into  the  background  in  most  of 
the  universities.  In  some  it  was  not  taught  at  all ;  in  others  it 
was  conducted  according  to  an  exegetical  tradition  which  passed 
from  one  system  to  another  in  such  a  way  that  a  passage  must 
l)e  explained  just  so,  and  in  no  other  way;  that  is,  just  as  it 
had  been  explained  in  the  authorized  teaching  of  the  Church. 
Thus  Exegesis,  in  so  far  as  it  was  conducted  at  all,  became  the 
handmaid  of  an  established  Dogmatic.  At  Leipzig,  1680-1690^ 
Olearius  was  unable  to  have  a  class  in  Exegesis,  and  Carpzov 
generally  closed  his  lectures  on  Isaiah  with  the  first  chapter.! 

Philip  Jacob  Spener,  who  sadly  deplored  the  lack  of  Biblical 
study  in  his  time,  speaks  as  follows  of  the  actual  condition:  "If 
in  the  lectures  of  the  professors  a  few  books  were  explained,  yet 

*  For  fuller  information  in  regard  to  the  Quedlinburg  CoUoquy,  see  Hut- 
ter.  Cap.  XLV.;  Rehtmeyer,  III.,  283  et  seqq. ;  Walch,  Introductio,  pp.  744 
et  seqq.;  G.  Frank,  Ge.sc'hichte  der  Prof.  Theologie.  pp.  2.59  et  seqq.;  Anton 
II.,  36  et  seqq.;  Leuekfeld,  Historia  neshus'iana.-\)]^.  209  et  seqq. 

t  TIassbaeh,  Ph.  J.  Spener  nnd  seine  Zeif.  T.,  13. 


THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD.  533 

almost  always  the  explanations  were  spun  out  to  sneh  length  that 
one  could  count  himself  fortunate  if  he  had  heard  one  or  two 
chapters,  and  most  of  the  classes  assembled  for  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures  turn  their  attention  only  to  the  so-called  more  diffi- 
cult passages,  as  they  prefer  to  say,  and  in  treating  such  they 
have  in  view  an  end  entirely  different  from  that  of  leading  their 
hearers  into  the  sanctuary  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  of  showing 
them  how  they  are  afterwards  themselves  to  engage  in  the 
explanation  of  the  Scriptures.  From  this  results  to  our  Church 
a  greater  injury  indeed  than  most  persons  suppose,  and  we  must 
feel  ashamed  of  it  in  the  sight  of  our  opponents."  *  And  again: 
'  *  I  and  other  Christians  have  often  complained  with  sadness  that 
at  the  Universities  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  not  presented  in 
theological  study  with  all  that  diligence  that  the  case  demands; 
since  they  are  the  sole  foundation  of  our  whole  theology,  and  in 
the  case  of  theological  students  nothing  more  important  can  be 
done,  than  unceasingly,  or  at  least  chiefly,  to  teach  them  how 
they,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  are  to  be  brought  to  a  correct 
knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  \  As 
things  now  go,  many  very  diligent  students  of  theology,  who 
willingly  follow  the  lead  of  their  preceptors,  and  are  well  versed 
in  other  branches  of  theology,  and  diligently  prepare  thetical 
and  antithetical  and  polemical  discussions  and  the  like,  have 
not  in  an  entire  life  time  mastered  a  single  book  of  the  Bible, 
and  hence,  aside  from  their  own  cursory  private  reading  and 
the  incidental  consultation  of  the  passages  which  have  come  up 
in  other  matters,  have  learned  scarcely  anything  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  At  least  they  have  never  held  nor  could  they  con- 
duct an  exercise  in  exegesis. ' '  f 

Thus  the  undue  exaltation  and  normalizing  of  the  Symbolical 
Books  in  the  universities  led  to  the  relative  exclusion  and  neglect 
of  the  Book  from  which  the  Symbolical  Books  themselves  claim 
to  have  been  drawTi.  The  professors  spent  the  most  of  their  time 
on  Dogmatics  and  Polemics,  and  students  brought  from  the 
universities  scarcely  anything  that  they  could  use  in  the  min- 
istry for  the  edification  of  the  congregation.  Yea,  they  nearly 
all  imbibed  the  polemical  and  dogmatic  spirit.  As  a  rule  the 
jjreaching  was  controversial,  pedantic  and  scholastic.  Tholuck, 
writing  of  the  preaching  of  the  seventeenth  century,  says:  "In 
the  middle  of  the  century,  when  scholasticism  began  to  spread 
over  everything,   every  trace  of  popular  quality  disappeared, 

*  ConsUia  Latina,  III.,  p.  421.  y  Bedenlen,  IV.,  457. 


534  THE    BOOK    OK    CONCORD. 

and  into  the  place  of  heartfulness  and  practical  edification  en- 
tered more  and  more  the  didactico-theological  performance,  in 
which  learned  aridity  did  not  even  try  to  counteract  the  defici- 
ency by  florid  rhetoric  and  bombastic  phraseology."*  And 
Kahnis  has  spoken  with  equal  emphasis  on  the  same  subject.  He 
declares  that  throughout  the  seventeenth  century  the  pulpit  as 
well  as  the  professor's  chair  paid  tribute  to  the  formal  elabora- 
tion of  doctrine,  in  which  the  rules  of  logic,  etymology  and 
synonymy  played  a  large  part.  He  gives  typical  examples  of 
the  preaching  of  the  time.  He  names  a  preacher  who  spent  an 
entire  year  discoursing  on  Christ  as  a  true  handicraftsman.  In 
special  sermons  he  described  Christ  as  the  best  cloth-maker 
(Matt.  6:25),  as  the  best  lamp-maker  (Luke  2:47),  as  the  best 
chimney-sweep.  Another  in  preaching  on  Christ  as  a  chimney- 
sweep, described  first  the  chimey-sweep,  then,  the  flue,  then, 
the  broom.  Kahnis  says  expressly  "that  the  learned  formalism 
corresponded,  as  might  be  supposed,  to  the  learned  content.  They 
quoted  the  text  in  Hebrew  and  Greek,  employed  much  Latin, 
appealed  not  only  to  ancient  and  mediaeval  church  teachers,  but 
also  to  the  classics  and  to  the  Rabbis,  entered  into  historical  and 
chronological  investigations,  and  thundered  not  only  against 
Catholics  and  Reformed.  Soeinians  et  al.,  but  also  against  the 
Macedonians,  Patripassians  and  Valentinians.  and  introduced 
from  nature  and  history  many  illustrations  in  which  the  power 
to  prove  and  to  edify  is  more  than  doubtful.  Andrew  Schoppius 
preached  (1605)  a  sermon  on  the  origin  of  the  human  hair,  its 
proper  use  and  abuse,  and  in  another  sermon  he  stormed  against 
the  tobacco-brothers  and  tlie  tobacco-sisters  who  chew  and  smoke 
the  accursed  weed,  and  instead  of  the  morning  prayers,  bring 
an  oft'ering  to  the  devil,  who  is  their  God."  t 

Christlieb  and  M.  Schian,  in  describing  "the  preaching  of  the 
Protestant  orthodoxy  up  to  the  time  of  Spener  (about  1580  to 
1700),"  say:  "In  general.  The  post-reformation  preaching 
of  the  sixteenth,  and  still  more  rigidly  the  Lutheran  preaching 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  preserved  for  about  a  century  and 
a  half  its  confessional  character.  Instead  of  the  fresh,  quicken- 
ing attestation  of  the  Reformation  period,  there  prevailed  a  dry 
dogmatism,  which  on  the  pulpit  presented  not  simply  that  which 
is  necessary  to  salvation,  but  aimed  to  defend  the  Confession  in 
the  most  extreme  points  of  doctrine.     The  numerous  doctrinal 

*  Ber  Geist  der  Lutheri.schcn  TJit'olof/cn,  p.  70.  »_ 

V  Dir  Iiincye  Ganfi  dcs  Dnifsclicii  Frnfestantismus.  \)]>.  lt>i    ct  seqq. 


thp:  book  of  concord.  535 

controversies  brought  also  to  the  pulpit  a  harsh  polemic.  And 
as  more  and  more  by  controversy  with  the  Roman  and  the  in- 
ternal opponents  the  Church  doctrine  became  a  new  scholast- 
icism, and  in  the  Church's  practice  the  'pure  doctrine'  was  re- 
garded as  an  end  in  itself,  the  more  did  controversies  and  learned 
technical  terms  also  enter  into  the  preaching.  In  its  substance 
it  was  far  more  theological  than  religious,  and  hence  it  became 
at  the  same  time  dry  and  doctrinaire.  For  the  history  of  preach- 
ing a  distinction  must  be  made.  In  the  sixteenth  century  the 
dry,  scholastic  doctrinarianism  on  the  pulpit  is  yet  relatively 
rare.  With  the  most  distinguished  preachers  there  yet  prevailed 
for  the  most  part  wisely  edifying,  practical  preaching,  which 
comes  from  the  depth  of  a  quiet,  firm  conviction  of  faith.  On 
the  contrary,  at  the  end  of  this  century,  and  in  the  course  of 
the  seventeenth,  a  dry,  polemical,  and  scholastic,  ossified  preach- 
ing gains  the  ascendency.  And  yet  a  mystic,  edifying  and  prac- 
tical ascetic  preaching  of  faith,  even  of  a  churchly  character, 
constantly  makes  its  appearance."  * 

These  authors  also  give  typical  examples  of  subjects  and 
plans  of  sermons  to  illustrate  the  kind  of  preaching  they  have 
described.  We  must  say  that  in  grotesqueness  and  in  monstrous- 
ness  they  put  to  shame  the  homiletical  vagaries  and  eccentricities 
that  sometimes  degrade  and  disgrace  the  pulpit  of  modern  times. 
Hence  we  are  not  surprised  to  learn  "that  the  churches  were 
turned  into  beer  saloons  and  into  theatres.  Yea,  we  read  that 
during  the  public  worship  men  got  drunk,  and  that  misdemean- 
ors were  committed  such  as  cannot  be  named."  f  The  gluttony, 
drunkenness  and  buffoonery  of  the  nobility  in  that  century  almost 
beggar  description  :  "Among  them  fornication  was  no  sin,  much 
less  a  disgrace.  The  same  was  true  of  citizens  and  peasants  at  the 
yearly  markets,  and  church  festivals;  yea,  Sundays  were  spent 
in  dancing  and  carousing,  while  fighting,  murder  and  man- 
slaughter were  of  ordinary  occurrence.  Many  preachers  even 
led  disorderly  lives  and  were  given  to  drunkenness.  The  common 
people  lived  in  gross  ignorance  and  blindness,  and  nobody 
thought  about  catechetical  examinations  and  instructions. "  1 
Indeed,  Gerber  describes  all  classes  as  living  almost  brutish 
lives,  and  quotes  John  Arndt  as  having  written  to  a  friend: 
"Ah,  my  dear  Doctor,  if  we  do  not  declaim  against  the  wicked- 

*  Eealencyclopddie,^  Art.,  Predigt.  Lentz,  Geschichte  der  'Christlichen 
Homiletik,  II.,  83-91. 

t  Kahnis,  ut  supra,  p.  11.5. 

rj:  Gerber.  Historie  der  Kircheii-Ceremonien  in  Sachsen,  pp.  41-42. 


536  THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD. 

■ness  which  is  now  so  great  that  it  mounts  to  heaven  and  cries 
aloud,  either  a  bloody  and  consuming  dehige,  or  the  fire  of  Sodom 
or  the  famine  of  Samaria  and  Jerusalem  will  come  upon  it." 

And  yet  the  historians  of  the  pulpit  gladly  recognize  in  the 
midst  of  this  scholastic  doctrinairism  and  moral  degradation 
the  presence  of  men  like  John  Arndt,  Valerius  Herberger,  Valen- 
tine Andreae,  Liitkemann,  Heinrich  Miiller  and  Christian  Scriver, 
preachers  of  a  truly  evangelical  character,  who,  in  the  face  of  op- 
position and  of  denunciation  by  their  colleagues  and  by  the  pro- 
fessors of  the  universities,  reproduced  the  Christian  simplicity 
and  the  earnest  witness  of  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  and  tes- 
tified to  the  life  that  still  existed  here  and  there  in  the  Church  and 
that  has  always  existed  in  it.  But  these  men  were  hounded  and 
persecuted  by  not  a  few  of  their  contemporaries.  John  Arndt 's 
True  Christianity  was  violently  attacked  by  his  brethren  in  the 
ministry  and  was  called  "a  book  of  hell,"  and  he  himself  was 
denounced  as  a  papist,  a  Pelagian,  a  Weigelian,  a  Schwenckfeld- 
ian,  a  mystic.  Johannes  Deutschmann,  as  the  mouthpiece  of  the 
Wittenberg  theological  faculty,  charged  two  hundred  and  eighty- 
four  heresies  against  Philip  Jacob  Spener.  Indeed,  almost  every 
form  and  statement  of  teaching  that  differed  even  in  microscopic 
proportions  from  the  current  interpretation  of  the  Symbolical 
Books  was  branded  as  a  heresy  by  the  dogmatists  and  doctrinaires 
of  the  time,  who  thought  that  the  ' '  pure  doctrine ' '  could  of  itself 
preserve  the  Church,  and  if  presented  by  an  orthodox  ministry 
would  of  itself  work  in  those  who  heard  it  faith  and  salvation. 
Hence  the  "theology  of  the  unregenerate, "  or  the  principle  of 
the  opus  operotum  set  up  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  in 
some  instances  was  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  preaching  of  the 
Gospel  and  the  administration  of  the  sacraments  by  an  unregen- 
erate but  orthodox  pastor  would  be  even  more  efficacious  than  if 
administered  by  a  godly  pastor,  for  in  that  case  there  could  be 
no  thought  of  trust  in  the  human  merit  or  Avorthiness  of  the 
minister. 

6.     The  Dogmatic   Theology  of  the   Seventeenth   Century. 

But  now  let  us  come  to  the  theology  of  the  seventeenth  century. 
It  is  usually  called  the  Lutheran  Dogmatic.  Sometimes  it  is 
called  the  Lutheran  orthodoxy.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  this 
theology,  ■  taken  as  a  whole,  must  be  regarded  as  one  of  the 
greatest  achievements  of  the  human  mind.  Neither  can  it  be 
denied  that  it  still  has  much  more  than  a  historical  value  for 


THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD.  537 

the  Lutheran  Church:  and  as  little  can  it  be  denied  that  it  is 
not  the  final  theology  of  the  Lutheran  Church  or  for  the  Luth- 
eran Church.  If  theology  be  a  science,  then,  like  every  other 
science,  it  must  hold  fast  to  that  which  has  been  established, 
and  it  must  appropriate  by  truly  scientific  process  all  that  can 
be  established  by  subsequent  study  and  research;  and  it  must 
give  up  all  that  improper  methods  and  false  deductions  have 
imposed  upon  it. 

That  some  of  the  methods  employed  by  the  Lutheran  Dogma- 
ticians  of  the  seventeenth  century  were  improper  and  unscientific 
will  not  be  questioned.  Notwithstanding  the  confessional  declar- 
ation that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  doc- 
trine, it  is  nevertheless  a  fact  that  Holy  Scripture  received  very 
little  critical  and  scientific  study  during  the  dogmatic  era.  It 
was  assumed  that  "all  Scripture"  was  inspired,  not  only  in 
thought,  but  in  word,  in  letter  and  in  Hebrew  vowel  point.  Dif- 
ferences in  time,  in  circumstances,  in  authors,  Avere  but  little,  if 
at  all.  regarded.  Hence  one  portion  of  the  Bible  was  just  as 
authoritative  as  another,  and  was  just  as  appropriate  for  the 
confirmation  of  doctrine  as  another,  provided  it  be  accepted  ac- 
cording to  the  interpretation  which  had  been  given  it  in  the  Sym- 
bolical Books.  Thus,  in  reality  the  Symbolical  Books  became  the 
norm  of  doctrine.  They,  too,  were  regarded  as  inspired — not 
immediately,  not  in  their  words  and  letters,  but  mecliateJij  and 
in  their  content.  Leonhard  Hutter,  Johannes  Deutschmann  and 
others  regarded  the  Formula  of  Concord  as  theopneustic.  Gott- 
lieb WeVusdorf,  in  his  Dissertation  on  the  Authority  of  the  Sym- 
bolical Books,  affirms  that  they  are  free  from  all  errors,  and  that 
they  agree  perfectly  with  Holy  Scripture;  nor  do  they  contain 
even  any  accidental  errors.  Samuel  Schelwig,  in  his  Synopsis 
of  Controversies,  affirmed  without  qualification  that  the  Sym- 
bolical Books  are  free  from  errors.  He  gives  as  the  reasons  for 
his  conviction  that  they  repeat  the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures; that  the  Holy  Spirit  guides  the  Church  into  all  truth; 
that  Christ,  in  fulfillment  of  His  promise,  John  16 :  13,  was 
present  and  imparted  such  divine  grace  to  the  authors  of  the 
Symbolical  Books  that  they  Avere  unable  to  err.  Walch  says  that 
Wernsdorf  "distinctly  affirms  that  the  Symbolical  Books  are 
not  merely  human  productions,  but  also  entirely  divine,  since 
the  Books  are  to  be  estimated  more  from  their  matter,  the  nobler 
part,  than  from  the  external  form  and  manner  of  statement, 
which  are  subordinate.    Hence  the  Svmbols  merit  the  name  and 


538  THE    BOOK    OF   CONCORD. 

title  of  divine  much  rather  than  of  human  productionvS. ' '  * 
Waleh  gives  the  names  of  others  who  held  similar  views  in 
regard  to  the  inspired  character  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  and 
says  that  "very  many  are  wont  to  say  simply  that  these  Books 
are  divine,  but  do  not  explain  in  what  manner  divineness  is  to 
be  understood,  and  wherein  it  differs  from  the  divineness  of  Holy 
Scripture."  J.  B.  Carpzov  (1607-1657)  wrote:  "The  Sym- 
bolical Books  are  not  primarily  theoptieustic,  but  only  sacred, 
and  in  a  secondary  sense  divine,  and  only  with  reference  to  the 
object,  which  is  divine  revelation,  and  by  no  means  with  refer- 
ence to  the  mode  of  communication,  which  is  human,  and  has 
the  privilege  of  only  mediate  illumination."  f  But  the  Witten- 
berg theological  faculty  declared  officially  in  1695:  "We  be- 
lieve, teach  and  confess  that  the  Symbolical  Books,  not  only  in 
matter  and  in  doctrines,  hut  also  in  all  the  parts,  are  the  divine 
truth  imparted  to  the  Church  according  to  the  Scriptures,  and 
are  obligatory  in  all  points. ' "  t 

And  as  regards  the  formula  of  obligation  laid  upon  candidates 
for  the  ministry  at  their  ordination,  we  find  that  it  was  absolute 
and  unequalified.  Some  theologians  regarded  subscription 
qualified  by  quatenus  as  equivalent  to  subscription  to  the 
Racovian  Catechism  or  to  the  Alcoran. §  Hutter  informs  us 
that  candidates  for  the  ministry  subscribed  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord pure  and  categorice :  and  he  has  handed  down  to  us  a 
formula  of  subscription  which  was  introduced  in  1602 :  "I, 
N.  N.,  solemnly  promise,  that  I  will  not  depart  from  the  Pro- 
phetical and  Apostolical  doctrine  as  it  is  contained  in*  sum  in 
the  articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  in  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, and  is  implied  in  the  Church  statement  of  our  Prince,  the 
Elector,  nor  from  the  doctrine  of  our  churches,  especiall.y  as 
it  treats  of  the  human  powers,  of  justification,  of  the  Supper 
of  the  Lord,  of  Baptism,  of  the  person  of  Christ,  nor  from  its 
other  articles.  I  will  not  teach  contrary  to  these,  nor  assent 
to  the  corruptions,  sects,  opinions  and  errors  of  the  Sacramen- 

*  Introductio,  pp.  930-931.  See  also  Hofling,  De  Symboloium  Naiura.  etc., 
for  similar  instances  of  judgment  in  regard  to  the  inspiration  and  iner- 
rancy of  the  Symbolical  Books.  Presented  with  fulness  by  Heinrich  Schmid 
in  Die  Geschichte  des  Pietismus,  Cap.  V. :  Die  Einzelangriffe  auf  Spener  von 
Schelwig,   Carpzov,   Alberti,   der  Wittenberger   Fakultat. 

t  Iftagoge  in  Lib.  Luth.  Si/mholicos,  p.  3. 

t  Quoted  from  Hofling,  ut  supra,  p.  45,  noic.  Also  quoted  by  Schmid. 
Geschichte  des  Pietismus,  p.  244. 

§  Walch,  Introductio,  pp.  962  et  seqq.;  Hofling,  ut  supra,  p.  72. 


THE    BOOK    OF    COXCORD.  ,      539 

tarians  and  others,  nor  will  I  introduce  anythino-  new,  nor  will  I 
change  anything. ' '  * 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  servants  of  the  Church  were  boimd 
hand  and  foot  to  the  Symbolical  Books.  In  the  formula  quoted 
from  Hutter,  the  Scriptures  are  not  even  named — only  the 
Prophetical  and  Apostolical  doctrine  as  the  same  is  contained 
in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  the  Formula  of.  Concord. 
The  Confessions  are  the  norm.  From  their  statement  of  doctrine 
there  can  be  no  deviation,  while  the  italics  and  the  capitals 
used  show  the  points  of  emphasis,  namely,  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord, the  Supper  of  the  Lord  and  the  person  of  Christ. 

7.     The  Dogmaticians. 

Now  it  was  under  such  conditions  and  restrictions  that 
the  Lutheran  Dogmatic  arose.t  We  begin  with  Leon- 
hard  Hutter  (1563-1616),  from  1596  Professor  of  Polemics 
at  Wittenberg,  called  Lutherus  Redivivus  and  Malleus  Cal- 
vinianorum,  the  learned  and  valiant  defender  of  the  Luth- 
eran Symbols,  and  the  author  of  Concordia  Co7icors  against 
Concordia  Discors  ojf  Hospinian.  In  1610  Hutter,  under 
commission  of  the  Elector  Christian  II..  published  a 
Compendium  of  theological  Common  Places  drawn  from  the 
Holy  Scripture  and  the  Book  of  Concord.  The  different  topics 
are  presented  in  the  form  of  questions  and  answers.  For  the 
most  part  the  answers  are  given  in  the  words  of  the  Formula 
of  Concord,  though  quotations  are  made  from  the  writings  of 
Luther,  Chemnitz,  Aegidius  Hunnius,  and  even  from  those  of 
Melanchthon,  though  in  the  Preface  the  author  creates  prejudice 
against  Melanchthon  by  attaching  to  his  name  this  note :  Ubi- 
quidem  orthodoxiam  ille  tenuit! 

This  book  was  introduced  into  the  provincial  schools  and 
universities  by  command  of  the  Elector,  and  had  to  be  com- 
mitted to  memory  by  the  students.  It  supplanted  Melanch- 
thon's  Loci,  which  for  three  generations  had  been  voluntarily 
used  as  the  principal  text-book  in  theology,!  and  it  made  the 

*  Concordia  Coiieor.^,  Cap.  LVI.,  fol.  380&. 

t  It  would  be  scarcely  possible  to  fix  the  date  of  the  rise  of  the  scholastic 
theology  of  the  Lutheran  Church.     Even  David  Chytraeus   (died  1600)   con- 
fessed that  m  his  time  theology  was  mere  scholastica,  in  qua  nihil  pietatis 
appareat.    See  Moller-Kawerau.  Eirchengeschichte,  3d  ed..  III.,  411  et  seqq 
for  an  excellent  treatment  of  the  subject. 

J:  In  the  year  1.588,  the  Elector  Christian  I.  of  Saxonv  commanded  that 
Dr.  Hemnch  Mai  should  lecture  publicly  on  Melanchthon's  Loci  before  the 
students  in  the  University  of  Wittenberg,  and  should  pursue  the  matter  with 
all  diligence.     Original  in  Forsteniann's  Liber  Decanorum,  p.  165. 


540  THE    BOOK    OF   CONCORD. 

definitions  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  rather  than  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures,  normative  for  Lutheran  theology.  Hence  it  marks  a  turn- 
ing point  in  the  history  of  the  Lutheran  theology;  indeed, 
strictly  speaking,  it  introduced  the  Lutheran  Dogmatic  in  its 
characteristic  features.  The  answers  to  the  questions  on  the 
person  and  work  of  Christ,  on  Free-will,  on  the  Lord's  Supper, 
are  taken  prevailingly  from  the  Formula  of  Concord,  or  are  sup- 
ported by  references  to  the  same. 

Hutter's  method  was  more  fully  carried  out  in  his  Loci  Com- 
munes Theologici,  published  by  the  Wittenberg  Theological  Fac- 
ulty in  1619.  This  work  is  professedly  based  on  the  Loci  Com- 
munes of  Melanchthon.  But  it  begins  with  an  attack  on  Mel- 
anchthon,  and  sets  forth  seven  fundamental  points  in  which 
Melanchthon  departed  from  the  orthodoxy  of  Luther;  and  then, 
at  the  close  of  the  section,  it  is  said:  "As  regards  the  person 
and  death  of  Philip,  it  is  not  ours  to  judge.  He  was  the  servant 
of  Christ;  to  this  his  own  Master  he  both  has  stood  and  has 
fallen.  And  though  we  neither  can  nor  ought  to  praise  in  him 
the  defection  from  the  purity  of  the  heavenly  doctrine,  yet  we 
do  not  doubt  that  at  the  close  of  his  life  he  earnestly  repented 
and  sought  and  obtained  from  Christ  the  Saviour  the  pardon 
of  this  sin  also." 

Nothing  can  better  exhibit  the  spirit  of  the  old  orthodoxy 
than  this  quotation.  It  makes  salvation  depend  upon  the  faith 
that  is  believed,  rather  than  upon  the  faith  that  believes. 

We  come  next  to  John  Gerhard  (1582-1637),  Superintendent 
at  Heldburg,  Professor  at  Jena,  General  Superintendent  at  Co- 
burg,  who  has  been  called  the  " archtheologian. "  His  Loci 
Communes  Theologici  appeared  in  nine  volumes  at  Jena  in  1620- 
1622.  Though  he  followed  the  local  or  topical  method,  j^et  he 
is  far  more  thorough,  comprehensive  and  systematic  than  Hut- 
ter.  In  an  eminent  degree  he  combines  learning,  piety,  ortho- 
doxy and  mysticism,  and  makes  commendable  use  of  exegesis. 
Nevertheless,  his  tendency  is  scholastic.  He  divides  and  sub- 
divides ;  refutes  those  of  an  opposing  faith,  argues  by  thesis  and 
antithesis;  quotes  extensively  from  the  ancient  teachers  of  the 
Church,  and  employs  many  technical  terms  borrowed  from  the 
Greeks  and  the  Mediaevals.  Reason  and  the  understanding  oc- 
cupy a  prominent  place  in  Gerhard's  theology,  which  is  still 
regarded  as  a  classic  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  notwithstanding 
the  fact  that  it  carries  the  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
Scripture  to  the  Hebrew  vowel  points.     Buddeus  has  this  to 


THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD.  54l 

«ay:  "Our  John  Gerhard  has  dimmed  the  glory  of  almost  all 
those  who  have  published  systems  or  loci  communes  theologici. 
There  are  some  who  accuse  him  of  having  brought  back  the 
scholastic  theology  into  our  Church,  as  is  evident  from  his  Loci 
Theologici,  which  are  treated  in  a  scholastic  way.  Nevertheless, 
these  same  persons  must  confess  that  he  was  more  cautious  than 
those  who  followed  him,  and  was  more  moderate  in  combining 
philosophy  with  theology. ' '  * 

Abraham  Calovius  (1612-1686),  from  1650  Professor  at  Wit- 
tenberg, who  prayed  daily:  Reple  me,  Deus,  odio  liaereticorwm, 
published,  1655-1677,  his  Systema  Locorum  Theologicorum  in 
twelve  thick  quarto  volumes.  He  has  been  called  a  dogmatic 
virtuoso,  the  Lutheran  Torquemada,  and  has  been  compared  to 
a  stone-mason  who  cuts  and  hews  stones  for  a  wall.  His  method 
is  the  analytico-causal,  and  advances  through  proof  and  refuta- 
tion to  the  practical  use  of  the  doctrine.  Calovius  and  his 
Systema  have  been  thus  described  by  Gass :  ' '  The  careful  treat- 
ment of  Bible  passages  and  the  patristic  citations  alternate,  and 
the  polemic  vehemence  is  even  more  tolerable  than  the  lifeless 
aridity  of  the  compends.  The  true  sense  for  truth  and  the 
echoing  tone  of  hearty  piety  which  meet  us  in  Gerhard  we 
seek  in  vain  in  Calovius,  and  it  cannot  exist  when  the  atten- 
tion is  so  strained  in  detecting  the  foreign  and  the  contradictory, 
and  has  the  effect  now  of  chilling  and  now  of  exciting  in  the 
presentation.  The  entire  tendency  is  different,  or  rather,  it 
now  truly  becomes  a  tendency.  Every  other  didactic  purpose 
is  dominated  by  that  of  maintaining  the  system  amid  invad- 
ing distractions,  just  as  in  the  times  of  the  Formula  of  Con- 
cord."! Faith  was  with  him  in  its  ultimate  ground  the 
reception  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  and  all  articles  are  essential. 
He  says  expressly:  "Fides  est  una  copulativa;  so  that  if  any 
one  denies  or  removes  anything  in  the  system  of  faith,  he 
destroys  the  entire  system  of  faith."  And  again:  "Not  only 
must  faith  be  retained  and  guarded  in  those  articles  which  con- 
cern the  foundation,  but  also  in  the  others,  that  are  placed 
above,  or  beneath,  or  are  joined  to  the  foundation."  i 

John  Andrew  Quenstedt  (1617-1688),  since  1649  Professor  of 
Theology  at  Wittenberg,  called  "the  bookkeeper  of  the  Witten- 
berg orthodoxy,"  published  in   1685   his   Theologia  Didactico- 

*  Isagoge  Historico-TheoJogica,  pp.  .391-2. 
t  GescMchte  der  Pwtestanlischen  Dogmatik,  I.,  pp.  3.3.3-4. 
+  Tomus  Primus,  pp.  797-799.   See  a  good  sketch  of  Calovius  in  Tholuck 's 
Der  Geist  der  Luth.  Theologen,  pp.  185-210. 


542  THE    BOOK    OF   CONCORD. 

Polemica,  which  is  regarded  as  the  last  comprehensive  system  of 
the  old  Lutheran  dogmatic.  It  is  based  essentially  on  Konig's 
Compend  and  presents  nothing  that  is  new  or  original. 
"Through  objectivity  of  statement  and  through  large  acquaint- 
ance with  the  contemporaneous  literature,  Quenstedt,  next  to 
Gerhard,  is  the  most  instructive  representative  of  the  orthodox 
dogmaticians.  But  formalism  is  overdone.  Theology  has  become 
a  mathematic  of  dogmatic  ideas.  The  Scriptures  are  subordinate, 
rather  than  authoritative. ' '  * 

Hafenreffer,  Konig,  Baier,  Scherzer  and  Hollazius  might  be 
added  to  the  list  of  Lutheran  Dogmaticians:  but  these  four, 
namely,  Hutter,  Gerhard,  Calovius  and  Quenstedt,  may  be  re- 
garded as  the  best  representatives  of  the  orthodox  Dogmatic  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  which  has  been  characterized  thus  by 
Luthardt:  "The  Dogmatic  of  the  seventeenth  century  (with 
the  close  of  the  sixteenth)  will  always  remain  the  classic  age  of 
the  Lutheran  Dogmatic,  and  it  is  the  necessary  school  of  all 
that  follow.  Yet  it  is  not  Avithout  its  shadowy  sides.  1.  The 
preponderance  of  polemic  occasioned  by  the  necessary  conflict 
with  Synergism,  Crypto-Calvinism  and  Syncretism  at  home,  as 
well  as  with  the  cunningly  renewed  attacks  of  the  Romish 
Church,  that  is,  of  Bellarmin,  and  against  the  Arminians,  the 
Socinians,  and  sects  from  without.  2.  A  too  exclusive  subserv- 
ience to  the  SjjmhoJs,  to  which  already  Hutter  (Explan.  libri 
cone,  p.  1)  ascribed  a  certain  divine  inspiration  (Librum  cone, 
divinitus  inspiratum  appellare  minime  dubitamus),  by  which 
Dogmatic  became  a  scholasticism.  AVith  this  is  connected,  3., 
the  formalistic  character  and  unhistorical  mind.  The  devotion 
to  form,  that  is,  the  causal  method  (causa  efficiens,  materialis, 
formalis,  finalis),  or  the  defining  method  (analysis  of  the  defini- 
tions placed  at  the  beginning),  or  the  two  united,  at  first  em- 
ployed for  mastering  and  curtailing  the  material,  finally  made 
the  scientific  presentation  external  and  destitute  of  life.  In- 
stead of  the  historical  treatment,  logic  ruled  in  a  one-sided 
w^ay. ' '  t 

The  Reformation  was  a  movement  characterized  by  produc- 
tivity, and  by  an  intense  suhjectivity,  in  the  sense  that  the 
Reformers  laid  stress  on  the  experience  of  salvation,  and  on 
the  faith  that  ielieves.     The  orthodoxy  of  the  last  quarter  of^ 

*  Luthardt,  Kompendium  der  Dogmatil-,  7th  ed.,  p.  .52. 
t  Kompendium  der  Dogmatize,  p.  47.     See  Frank,  GescJiichte  und  Kritik 
der  Neiieren  Theologie,  pp.  21  et  seqq. 


THE    BOOK    OF   COXCORD.  543 

the  sixteenth  and  of  the  seventeenth  century  was  characterized 
by  reproduction,  systemization,  incrustation,  ossification,  and  by 
an  intense  objectivity,  in  the  sense  that  it  laid  stress  on  the  faith 
that  is  believed.  It  aimed  to  guard  the  treasure  that  had  been 
bequeathed  as  a  quantum  of  doctrine,  rather  than  to  add  to  it 
and  to  apply  it  for  the  procurement  of  practical  results. 

Moreover,  this  Dogmatic,  especially  that  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  must  be  characterized  chiefly  as  a  polemic,  that  is,  it 
was  directed  chiefly  by  the  polemical  spirit,  and  proceeds  on 
the  principle  that  the  true  doctrine  can  be  established  only  by 
refuting  the  opposite  doctrine.  Hence,  as  a  rule,  the  Catholics, 
the  Calvinists,  the  Socinians,  the  Syncretists,  the  Weigeleans.  the 
]\Iystics,  and  others  are  brought  on  the  arena  and  dialectically 
slain  and  east  out.  Even  a  superficial  acquaintance  with  Calov- 
ius  and  Quenstedt  shows  us  this  characteristic,  but  this  need 
not  surprise  us.  It  comes  as  a  legitimate  inheritance  from  the 
Formula  of  Concord  and  from  the  Flacianist  Polemic. 

7.     TJie   Syncretistic   Controversy. 

This  sketch  of  the  Dogmatic  of  the  seventeenth  centuTy 
would  be  quite  incomplete,  did  it  not  contain  some  account  of 
the  Syncretistic  Controversy. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  the  University  of  Helmstadt  did  not 
accept  the  Book  of  Concord.  Here,  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
the  learned  George  Calixtus  was  the  most  active  and  influential 
professor.  He  was  not  bound  in  his  teaching  by  the  Book  of 
Concord.  He  thought  to  unite  all  Christians  on  the  basis  of  the 
Scriptures  and  the  doctrinal  tradition  of  the  first  five  centuries 
{consensus  quinquesaecularis) .  This,  and  his  Epitome  Theo- 
logiae,  first  published  in  1619,  brought  him  into  conflict  with 
other  Lutheran  theologians.  Especially  was  he  hated  and  sus- 
pected because  he  spoke  well  of  the  Reformed  and  opposed  the 
doctrine  of  ubiquity.  He  himself  proposed  the  name  Syncretism. 
Eventually  the  Syncretistic  Controversy,  as  it  here  concerns  us, 
was  between  Wittenberg  and  Helmstadt,  or  more  specifically,  be- 
tween Calovius  and  Calixtus.  The  former  violently  attacked  the 
latter  in  different  treatises,  and  the  latter  replied  just  as  vio- 
lently, utterly  repudiating  the  allegations  that  he  had  over- 
thrown the  foundations  of  the  Evangelical  Confession.  In  his 
repudiation  he  was  entirely  correct,  for  it  cannot  be  shown  that 
Calixtus  ever  departed  from  the  generic  Lutheran  doctrine.  In 
his  Epitome  Theologiae,  p.  208,  he  says  that,  when  "the  conse- 


544  THE    BOOK    OF    CONCORD. 

crated  bread  is  received  and  eaten,  at  the  same  time  the  true 
substantial  body  of  Christ  is  received  and  eaten,  and  when 
the  consecrated  cup  is  received  and  drunk,  at  the  same  time 
the  true  substantial  blood  of  Christ  is  received  and  drunk." 
In  his  Christology  he  is  as  thoroughly  orthodox  as  is  Chemnitz 
in  his  Two  Natures  of  Christ,  and  in  his  Anthropology  there 
is  not  a  trace  of  Pelagianism  or  of  false  Synergism.  His  sin  was 
that  he  did  not  express  himself  according  to  the  conceptions 
and  in  the  language  of  the  then  current  orthodoxy. 

Solomon  Glassius,  Professor  at  Jena,  and  then  General  Super- 
intendent at  Gotha,  who  enjoyed  the  highest  reputation  for 
learning  and  for  soundness  in  the  Lutheran  faith,  was  directed 
by  his  Prince  to  publish  an  opinion  on  the  Syncretistic  Contro- 
versy. In  this  "he  demonstrated  with  equal  impartiality  and 
thoroughness  that  the  disputed  points  were  unimportant,  and 
that  the  erroneous  doctrines  with  which  Calixtus  was  charged 
were,  at  most,  only  indiscreet  expressions. ' '  * 

Finally,  in  the  year  1655,  the  Wittenberg  theological  Faculty 
prepared  in  eighty-eight  articles,  the  Consensus  Repetitus  Fidei 
vere  Lutheranae,  which,  both  in  character  and  in  contents,  may 
be  regarded  as  the  logical  conclusion  of  the  orthodox  Dogmatic 
of  the  seventeenth  century.f  It  is  aimed  expressly  at  the  teach- 
ing of  Calixtus.  Its  character,  at  least  in  part,  may  be  judged 
when  it  is  learned  that  its  authors  "profess  and  teach  that  the 
article  of  the  Most  Holy  Trinity  is  most  firmly  established  in 
the  Books  of  the  Old  Testament,  since  these  not  only  teach  that 
there  are  three  persons  of  the  most  Holy  Trinity,  but  also  most 
incontestably  add  that  there  is  one  true  God,  and  that  that  one 
God,  together  with  God  the  Father,  is  also  the  Son  of  God  and 
God  the  Holy  Spirit";  that  "divine  and  infinite  attributes 
(according  to  the  testimony  of  Scripture)  have  been  given  and 
communicated  to  Christ  the  man";  that  in  baptism  little  in- 

*  Gieseler,  V.  See  Unschuldige  Nachrichten,  1732,  pp.  486-7,  and  idem, 
1738,  p.  41  et  seqq.  Since  writing  the  text  above  we  have  discovered  this 
judgment  by  Professor  Kawerau:  "With  a  few  Melanchthoniau  modifica- 
tions of  the  orthodox  Dogmatic,  he  (Calixtus)  held  fast  to  the  Lutheran 
doctrine,  but  Catholics  and  Reformed  and  Lutherans  should  recognize  that 
in  the  substance  of  faith  common  to  them  they  possess  that  irhich  is  essen- 
tial. ' '  Kirchengeschichte,  3d  ed.,  III.,  432.  Without  question  this  may  be 
regarded  as  a  correct  statement  of  the  position  of  Calixtus. 

t  Buddeus  reports  that  the  Consensus  liepefitus  was  composed  by  Calo- 
vius  in  the  name  of  the  Wittenberg  and  Leipzig  theologians,  and  was  pub- 
lished in  1666.  Isagoge,  p.  1418.  The  Preface,  written  by  Calovius,  is  dated 
January,  1666.  But  the  book  itself  was  prepared  ten  years  earlier.  The 
Latin  text  was  republished  by  Henke,  Marburg,  1847.  Published  both  in 
Latin  and  in  German  in  Concilia  Theologica  Witebergensia,  pp.  928  et  seqq. 


THE    BOOK    or    CONCORD.  545 

fants  are  given  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  sanctified,  and  made  ac- 
ceptable to  God,  "and  that,  through  their  own  actual  faith"; 
that  no  one  can  be  saved,  in  whatever  dispensation  he  may  have 
lived  or  shall  yet  live,  who  does  not  believe  in  and  hold  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity;  that  "the  will  of  man  in  conver- 
sion and  justification  is  absolutely  passive";  and  those  are  re- 
jected "who  teach  that  not  only  Lutherans  and  Greeks,  but  also 
Papists  and  Calvinists  belong  to  the  Christian  Church." 

The  Consensus  w^as  subscribed  by  the  theologians  of  Witten- 
berg and  Leipzig.  Their  object  was  to  have  it  subscribed  by 
all  the  universities  as  a  new  Symbolical  book.*  But  already  the 
violently  polemical  and  magisterial  spirit  of  the  Wittenberg 
theologians  had  excited  disgust  and  opposition.  Tubingen  had 
not  forgotten  the  attitude  of  Wittenberg  in  the  Krypto-Kenosis 
Controversy,  and  Jena,  under  the  judicious  leadership  of  John 
Musaeus,  had  conceived  a  pacific  spirit.  Musaeus,  supported  by 
his  colleagues,  not  only  denied  the  charges  made  by  Wittenberg 
against  Jena,  but  followed  the  denial  with  a  scathing  review 
of  the  Consensus.  Also  several  Princes,  after  the  peace  of 
Westphalia,  showed  themselves  averse  to  the  new  controversies 
that  had  sprung  up.  It  was  seen  that  a  creed  so  dogmatic, 
illiberal,  abounding  in  exaggerated  and  malicious  allusions, 
could  only  produce  additional  strife  and  alienation.  Hence  the 
Consensus  Repctitus  failed  to  receive  confessional  endorsement. 
and  with  this  failure,  the  Lutheran  Orthodoxy,  which  had  now 
become  orthodoxism.  and  the  Lutheran  Dogmatic,  which  had 
now  become  dogmatism,  soon  began  to  decline  under  its  own 
weight.  A  new  spirit  had  entered,  and  it  was  felt  that  the 
religious  life  of  the  German  people  needed  a  nourishment  differ- 
ent from  that  offered  by  the  Consensus  Fepetitns.f 

'■  Biiddeiis,  ttt  sujtni,  p.  1,  428;  Gieseler,  V.,  p.  273. 

t  Walcli,  Bibliothecd  Tlieolof/ica  Selecta,  IT..  681,  and  Walcli,  Sfreitir/- 
Jceiten,  4  and  5,  p.  828;  Dorner.  History  of  Protestant  Theology.,  II.,  197-8. 
Tholuck,  Der  Geist,  etc.,  185-210,  passim. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

THE   SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS   IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM.    OF    PHILOSOPHY 
AND   OF  RATIONALISM. 

The  moral  and  religious  condition  of  Germany  during  the 
last  half  of  the  sixteenth  and  the  whole  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, as  made  known  by  the  most  reliable  historians,  was  simply 
appalling.  Almost  every  vice  and  crime  of  which  human  beings 
are  capable  ran  riot.  John  George  Walch  has  described  the 
condition  as  follows:  "In  all  classes  godlessness  had  gained  the 
upper  hand :  pomp,  luxury,  intemperance,  injustice,  falsehood, 
were  in  full  swing.  The  grossest  sins  were  no  longer  regarded 
as  sin :  sometimes  the  people  lived  worse  than  the  heathen  had 
done,  and  thus  we  find  few  traces  of  a  real  and  true  Christianity. 
For  the  most  part  the  people  clung  to  the  externals  and  thought 
that  it  was  sufficient  if  a  person  was  a  Christian  in  externals, 
and  outwardly  confessed  himself  to  the  Lutheran  Church,  had 
been  baptized  in  it,  and  at  stated  times  went  to  the  confessional 
and  to  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  preconception  which  is  found 
in  people  arises  from  many  external  causes,  which  exist  and 
operate  in  all  classes.  Thus  whoever  regarded  the  matter  with 
spiritual  eyes  cannot  but  say  that  our  Church,  in  reference  to  the 
life  and  walk  of  our  Christians,  was  in  a  highly  corrupt  condi- 
tion."* 

That    the    Thirty    Years'    War    (1618-1648)    aggravated    the 

wretched  moral  and  religious  conditions  of  the  German  people, 

is  undoubtedly  true.     But  the  chief  responsibility  lies  with  the 

controversies  and  with  the  theology  of  the  times  that  preceded 

the  war,  and  with  the  preachers  and  pastors  of  the  seventeenth 

century.     Gustav  Freytag,  in  his  Pictures  of  the  German  Oldoi 

Times,  has  praised  the  zeal  of  the  country  pastor  and  the  village 

preacher,  but  he  adds:     "If  we  dare  make  one  class  responsible 

for  the  defects  of  the  picture,  which  it  did  not  create,  but  only 

represented,    then    have   the    Lutheran    ministers   a   heavy    and 

fatal  guilt  in  the  desolation  of  soul,  in  the  impractical  weakness, 

*  Einleitung  in  die  SfreitigJceiten,  II.,  715-16.  For  confirmation  see 
Spener,  passim:  Gerher,  ut  supra,  pp.  40-43;  Schlegel,  Heformationsge- 
schichie  von  Nord  Dexiiscldand,  II..  passim;  Tholuck,  Das  Eirchliche  Leben 
des  17.  Jahrhunderts ;  Wiiiiembergisehe  Eirchengeschichte,  pp.  449  et  seqq. 

(546) 


THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM.  547 

in  the  dry  and  tedious  formalism,  which  so  often  manifested 
themselves  in  the  German  life  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury. The  ministers,  as  a  class,  were  neither  acceptable,  nor 
especially  amiable,  and  even  their  morality  was  narroAV-minded 
and  inhuman." 

The  Wiirtemhergische  EirchengescJiichte  testifies  that  the 
sources  of  information  more  than  justify  Freytag's  picture, 
both  as  to  the  praise  he  bestows  upon  the  village  pastors  and  as 
"to  the  evil  effect  of  the  wretched  tim.es  upon  the  official  and 
domestic  life  of  many  a  preacher."  *  But  it  was  not  all  bad  in 
Germany.  There  w'ere  still  more  than  seven  thousand  who  had 
not  bowed  the  knee  to  Baal  and  had  not  kissed  his  image ;  and 
there  were  prophets  of  God  in  those  days  who  rebuked  sin  in 
high  places  and  in  low,  but  these  were  only  as  the  voices  of  men 
crying  in  the  wilderness,  one  here  and  one  yonder.  The  godly 
village  pastors  sowed  and  w^atered  and  preserved  seed  in  the 
earth ;  while  Sebastian  Schmidt  and  John  Konrad  Dannhauer 
of  Strassburg  were  training  up  a  plant  that  should  spread  its 
benign  influence  over  Germany  from   the  South  to  the  North. 

1.  Pietism.  Wliat  it  is. 
Pietism,  as  it  concerns  us  in  this  chapter,  has  to  do  primarily 
and  fundamentally  with  Philip  Jacob  Spener  and  his  efforts 
to  awaken  deeper  spiritual  life  in  the  Lutheran  Church  of  Ger- 
many. He  was  born  in  Rappoldsweiler,  in  Tapper  Alsace,  Janu- 
ary 13,  1635.  He  was  by  nature  deeply  religious,  and  very  early 
in  life  he  read  important  books  on  practical  piety.  At  the 
University  of  Strassburg  Sebastian  Schmidt  awoke  in  him  a 
great  interest  in  the  exegesis  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  Dann- 
hauer directed  him  to  the  writings  of  Luther,  and  created  in 
him  that  love  for  the  Lutheran  doctrine  and  that  respect  for  the 
order  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  which  in  later  years  saved  him 
from  the  separatistic  movements  of  sectarianism.  At  the  con- 
clusion of  his  academic  career  he  went  to  Basel,  where  he  studied 
Hebrew^  under  the  younger  Buxtorf ,  and  thence  to  Geneva,  where 
he  w^as  deeply  impressed  by  the  excellent  discipline  in  the  Church 
and  by  the  earnest  religious  life  of  the  people,  and  where  he 
learned  to  know  the  highly  gifted  and  spiritually  minded  John 
Labadie.  But  he  was  not  so  much  influenced  by  these  associa- 
tions as  not  to  be  able,  in  the  year  1666,  to  preach  and  to  publish 
a   sermon   against  the   Reformed.     So   deeply   had  he   become 

•  Pp.  439-440. 


548  THE   SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA   OF    PIETISM, 

grounded  in  the  Lutheran  doctrine  that  he  preached  it  to  the 
end  of  his  days,  preferred  it  to  the  doctrine  of  any  other  church, 
confessed  it,  and  manifested  impatience  with  Lutherans  who 
scrupled  to  subscribe  to  the  Symbolical  Books,  though  he  did 
not  concede  that  such  Books  are  inspired,  neither  did  he  extend 
subscription  to  all  their  sharp  points.* 

After  returning  from  Switzerland  to  Germany  Spener  re- 
ceived, but  declined,  a  call  to  a  theological  professorship  in  the 
University  of  Tiibingen.  In  1663  he  accepted  a  call  to  become 
pastor  in  Strassburg,  and  lectured  in  the  University  on  history 
and  philosophy  in  1666 ;  at  the  age  of  thirty-one,  he  accepted  a 
call  to  become  pastor  and  senior  of  the  ministerium  in  Frank- 
fort on  the  Main.  Here  it  was  that  Spener  began  really  to  be 
active  as  a  reformer  of  the  church  life  of  his  time,  and  here  it 
was  that  the  epithet  Pietism  was  first  applied  to  his  work.  He 
did  not  begin  by  proclaiming  a  theory  of  reformation,  nor  did 
he  depart  from  the  methods  sanctioned  by  the  Church,  nor  did 
he  renounce  a  single  principle  established  by  the  Reformation. 
He  began  at  once  to  operate  on  the  moral  and  spiritual  condi- 
tions of  the  people  as  they  were  exhibited  in  Frankfort.  As 
the  government  of  the  Church  was  in  the  hands  of  civil  coun- 
sellors, church  discipline  was  well-nigh,  if  not  absolutely,  im- 
possible. But  the  way  lay  open  to  catechize  the  young  and  to 
instruct  the  people  in  the  Scriptures.  Activity  along  such  lines 
was  in  entire  harmony  with  the  principles  of  the  Reformation, 
which  had  bequeathed  the  Catechism  to  the  Church  and  had 
restored  the  Scriptures  to  the  people.  His  entire  future  course 
is  outlined  by  the  following  passage  delivered  in  a  sermon  on 
the  seventeenth  Sunday  after  Trinity  in  the  year  1669 : 

"Oh,  how  much  benefit  would  result  if  sometimes  on  Sun- 
day good  friends  would  come  together,  and,  instead  of  beer  and 
cards  and  dice,  would  either  take  in  hand  a  book  and  read  some- 
thing for  the  edification  of  all,  or  would  repeat  something  from 
the  sermons  which  they  hear,  and  if  they  would  all  speak,  each 
with  the  other,  about  the  divine  mysteries,  and  if  he  to  whom 
God  has  given  more  would  try  to  instruct  his  weaker  brethren ! 
But  where  they  are  not  clear  in  their  own  minds  they  might 
consult  a  preacher  and  have  the  matter  explained.  Ah,  should 
this  be  done,  how  wickedness  would  disappear  everywhere! 
Then  the  Holy  Sunday  would  be  hallowed  in  a  way  that  would 

*  See  Bedenlen.  I.,  39,  40,  341-39-4,  597,  and  III.,  972;  Sermon.  Sexa- 
gesima  Sunday,  1697;  Concilia,  I.,  331. 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    AND    OF    RATIONALISM.  549 

bring  great  edificatiou  and  marked  benefit.  ^Moreover,  it  is  cer- 
tain that  we  preachers  cannot  instruct  the  people  from  the 
pulpit  to  the  extent  that  it  ought  to  be  done,  where  there  are 
not  also  others  of  the  congregation  who  by  divine  grace  better 
understand  Christianity  by  virtue  of  the  universal  Christian 
ministry,  and  who  with  us  should  study  to  do  good  to  their 
neighbor  according  to  the  measure  of  their  gifts."  This  sug- 
gestion soon  developed  into  the  collegia  pietatis,  or  assemblies 
for  the  study  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  books  of  edification,  and 
for  conference  on  the  sermon  of  the  previous  Sunday. 

In  the  year  1675  an  edition  of  John  Arndt's  Post  Us  was 
published  in  Frankfort  w^ith  a  Preface  by  Philip  Jacob  Spener. 
Here  we  have  his  Pia  Desideria  or  Hearty  Longing  for  a  God- 
pleasing  Improvement  in  the  Evangelical  Church,  together  with 
some  Christian  Suggestions  looking  to  that  End.  He  begins  by 
giving  a  description  of  the  wretched  condition  of  the  Church : 
The  rulers  for  the  most  part  serve  their  own  lusts,  perpetuate 
their  caesaropapism,  and  stand  in  the  way  of  the  ministers.  The 
clergy  is  totally  corrupt.  They  are  destitute  of  the  spirit  of 
self-denial.  Theology  is  essentially  a  science  of  controversy. 
The  common  people  are  given  to  drunkenness,  lawsuits,  claiming 
absolution  without  repentance.  The  picture  of  the  moral  and 
religious  condition  of  the  people  is  drawn  in  very  dark  colors. 
Then  comes  the  propositions  for  improvement. 

1.  That  the  Word  of  God  be  more  fruitfully  brought  to  the 
people  than  had  been  previously  done,  and, than  was  possible  to 
be  done  where  the  preachers  were  confined  to  the  Perikopes.  In 
every  household  the  Bible  should  be  read  every  day,  and  in  cer- 
tain seasons  the  books  of  the  Bible  should  be  read  in  order  in  the 
Church  without  explanation.  As  was  done  in  the  times  of  the 
Apostles,  so  in  addition  to  the  public  worship  in  the  churches, 
meetings  should  be  held  for  the  reading  and  explanation  of  the 
Scriptures  and  for  mutual  edification. 

2.  The  establishment  and  the  diligent  practice  of  the  spiritual 
priesthood.  Christ  constituted  all  believers  priests.  The  spiritual 
offices  belong  to  all  Christians  without  distinction,  though  the 
public  administration  belongs  to  the  clergy.  It  was  a  trick  of 
the  devil  that  under  the  Papacy  all  the  spiritual  offices  were 
usurped  by  the  clerici.  In  opposition  to  this  monopoly  of  the 
spiritual  office,  which  belongs  to  all  Christians,  it  is  the  duty 
of  every  Christian  to  instruct,  to  admonish,  to  edify  his  brother. 
By   the   orderly   use   of   this   spiritual    priesthood   the    regular 


550  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

ministry  is  supplemented  and  assisted.     Thus  the  entire  Church 
will  be  benefited. 

3.  It  must  be  impressed  on  the  laity  that  in  Christianity 
it  is  not  enough  simply  to  know,  but  that  the  chief  thing  consists 
of  practice. 

4.  In  conducting  religious  controversies  and  in  intercourse 
with  unbelievers  and  with  false  believers  there  should  be  prayer, 
■good  example  and  the  statement  of  the  error  without  abuse  and 
personal  allegations.  Controversy  is  necessary  for  the  removal 
■of  error,  but  not  all  controversy  is  either  profitable  or  good ; 
and  if  the  disputants  act  without  the  Holy  Spirit  and  without 
faith  they  often  bring  strange  fire  into  the  sanctuary  of  the 
Lord.  Often  the  disputants  contend  more  for  glory  and  for 
victory  than  for  the  establishment  of  the  truth. 

5.  The  training  of  the  ministers  in  the  universities  must  be 
changed.  "The  disorderly  academic  life  should  be  abated,  and 
the  universities  should  cease  to  be  the  devil's  workshop  for 
ambition,  drunkenness,  fighting  and  quarreling."  The  students 
€n  departing  from  the  universities  ought  to  bring  with  them 
testimonials,  not  only  of  talents  and  diligence,  but  also  of  godly 
lives.  The  professors  should  direct  the  studies  of  the  students 
with  reference  to  their  talents  and  to  their  distinction  in  life. 
Controversy  should  be  curtailed,  and  students  should  be  directed 
to  such  writings  as  the  German  Theology  and  to  the  works  of 
Tauler  and  Thomas  a  Kempis.  And  since  theology  is  a  liahitus 
practicus,  students  should  have  such  practical  lectures  on  the 
New  Testament  as  would  qualify  them  to  instruct  and  to  com- 
fort the  sick. 

6.  There  should  be  a  complete  change  in  the  style  of  preach- 
ing. Instead  of  displaying  learning,  employing  foreign  lan- 
guages, artificial  arrangement  and  rhetoric,  it  should  be  directed 
to  the  inner  man. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Spener  was  Lutheran  through  and 
through.  There  is  not  one  of  these  Desideria  that  is  not  in  per- 
fect harmony  with  genuine  Lutheranism.  As  his  preaching  and 
many  of  his  discussions  show,  Spener  in  seeking  to  realize  these 
Desideria  emphasized  all  the  Lutheran  doctrines.  His  frequent 
expositions  of  Baptism  and  of  the  Lord's  Supper  and  of  justifi- 
cation are  solidly  Lutheran,  though,  as  was  natural  under  the 
€ircumstances,  he  insisted  more  than  Luther  did  on  the  fruits 
of  justification,  or  on  the  practice  of  a  truly  Christian  life.  He 
held  that  the  Reformation  had  not  been  completed,  ])ut  that  it 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    AND    OF    RATIONALISM.  551 

must  be  carried  further.  Luther  he  regarded  as  a  giant,  but 
he  declares  that  a  pigmy  standing  on  the  shoulders  of  a  giant 
can  see  further  than  the  giant. 

Luther  would  have  hailed  Spener  as  a  man  after  his  own 
heart,  and  as  a  true  soldier  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  fighting 
in  Frankfort  essentially  the  same  battle  that  he  himself  had 
fought  at  Wittenberg  a  century  and  a  half  earlier.  Did  Luther 
fight  against  the  Pontifex  ]\Iaximus  of  Romet  Spener  was 
fighting  against  the  arrogant  "little  popes"  scattered  all  over 
Germany.  Did  Luther  fight  against  an  ignorant  and  corrupt 
priesthood?  Spener  was  fighting  against  an  inept  and  immoral 
clergy.  Did  Luther  fight  against  false  doctrine?  Spener  was 
fighting  against  the  false  application  of  doctrine.  The  battle  in 
both  cases  was  a  struggle  for  a  living  faith  as  over  against  dead 
formalism,  and  the  weapons  used  by  both  were  the  same,  namely, 
the  preaching  and  the  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God.  Spener, 
not  less  than  Luther,  aimed  at  the  regeneration  of  theology,  the 
purification  of  the  Church,  the  reformation  of  the  mode  of  life 
among  Christians,  that  is,  among  those  who  professed  to  be 
Christians. 

The  Lutheran  Theology  in  the  time  of  Spener  might  have 
been  allowed  to  pass  as  "the  pure  doctrine;"  but  it  was  deficient 
of  life,  and  was'  associated  with  the  pernicious  principle  of  the 
thcologia  irregcniiorurn.  In  the  main  it  was  a  cold  intellectual 
apprehension  of  revealed  truth  almost  infinitely  divided  and  sub- 
divided by  definitions,  thesis  and  antithesis,  syllogisms,  proofs 
and  refutations,  a  scholastic  philosophy  of  religion,  and  not  that 
habitus  practicus  which  comes  through  the  study  of  the  Divine 
Word  under  the  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  by  the 
quickening  power  of  faith.  The  head,  as  Spener  once  expressed 
it,  must  be  sent  down  into  the  heart.  The  Church  must  again 
become  a  teaching  institution.  She — not  the  clerici — possesses 
the  Word  and  the  sacraments.  It  is  her  duty  to  use  these  for 
the  edification  of  her  members  and  for  the  purification  of  the 
body  of  Christ.  The  clerici  had  claimed  a  monopoly  of  the 
office  of  teaching  and  of  edification,  and  had  gone  back  virtually 
to  the  principle  of  the  opus  opcratum.  Whatever  was  preached 
from  the  pulpit  was  held  to  be  God's  Word,  and  scarcely  any- 
one doubted  that  he  who  heard  it  would  receive  the  divine 
blessing.  Spener  sought  to  arouse  the  laity  to  a  proper  ap- 
preciation of  their  rights  and  to  the  discharge  of  the  duties  in- 
volved in  the  universal  priesthood  of  believers  and  to  stimulate 


552  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

faith  in  those  who  compose  the  Church,  so  that  the  Church  late 
dicta  might  become  the  living  body  of  Christ,  the  Church  pro- 
prie  dicta.  His  supreme  aim  was  the  regeneration  of  the  ethical 
and  religious  life  of  the  people  in  opposition  to  the  mere  formal- 
ism that  satisfied  itself  by  going  to  the  confessional  and  to  the 
Lord's  Supper.  He  demanded  that  people  should  impose 
restraint  upon  themselves,  and  should  abstain  from  dancing, 
card  playing,  extravagant  dressing,  and  should  cultivate  sobriety 
of  speech  and  conduct. 

To  the  effectuation  of  these  great  ends  Spener  directs  all  his 
preaching;  and  his  sermons,  which  are  generally  very  long, 
are  well  adapted  to  produce  reformation  in  the  entire  ecclesiasti- 
cal and  religious  condition.  They  are  to  so  high  a  degree  doc- 
trinal and  ethical  that  a  system  of  popular  dogmatic  and  a 
system  of  practical  ethics  might  be  compiled  from  them.  First 
comes  the  Introduction,  then  the  Exposition  of  the  Text,  then 
the  Points  of  Doctrine,  and  then  the  Content  of  the  Gospel. 
Such  sermons  could  not  possibly  produce  fanaticism  or  senti- 
mentalism  in  religion.  Their  proper  effect  would  be  the  produc- 
tion of  an  intelligent  and  ehurchly  piety,  and  such  was  the 
actual  effect  produced  by  Spener 's  preaching.  Hence  we 
are  not  surprised  to  learn  that  his  preaching  was  received  with 
great  applause.  Even  his  Fia  Desideria  were  at  first  approved 
by  the  most  orthodox  theologians  of  Germany.  Abraham  Cal- 
ovius  wrote  as  follows :  ' '  Oh,  how  good  and  precious  it  was  at 
that  time  to  many  students  to  be  pointed  to  real  improvement, 
for  they  were  very  hungry  and  thirsty  to  know  how  they  were 
to  proceed  in  the  paths  of  reformation,  and  to  attain  to  true 
evangelical  improvement,  and  to  direct  others ! "  * 

But  when  Spener  and  his  friends  began  to  make  a  real  appli- 
cation of  the  Pia  Desideria  by  turning  attention  to  the  study 
of  the  Bible  as  over  against  the  current  methods  of  theological 
instruction,  and  restored  the  universal  priesthood  in  the  con- 
iiregations  as  over  against  caesaropapism  and  the  clerical  monop- 
oly of  the  means  of  grace,  and  opposed  the  theology  of  faith  to 
the  tlieologia  irregoiitorum.  then  it  was  that  scores  upon  scores 
of  books  and  pamphlets  and  manifestos  w^ere  launched  against 
"the  innovations  of  Pietism."  Nevertheless,  Pietism  made  prog- 
ress. Soon  after  coming  to  Dresden  in  1686  Spener  induced 
the  Elector  to  order  the  tAvo  Saxon  universities  (1690)  to  intro- 
duce exegetical  studies,  and  to  conduct  the  same  in  such  a  way 
*  Schnnd,  Gcschiclite  des  Pietismus,  p.  61. 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    AND    OF    RATIONALISM.  553 

as  to  make  them  serviceable  for  consolation  and  for  admonition 
against  sin.  The  professors  were  commanded  "to  finish  a 
chapter  in  three  or  four  lectures,  and  not  to  consume  the  time 
with  the  opinions  of  the  Doctors  of  the  Church,  or  with  other 
unnecessary  and  curious  matters,  but  to  take  the  utmost  care  to 
bring  their  hearers  to  a  simple  understanding  of  the  Script- 
ures. ' '  * 

This  was  revolutionary,  indeed,  but  it  was  not  an  innovation. 
It  was  simply  a  return  to  the  methods  of  the  Reformation,  for 
Luther  and  ]\Ielanchthon  placed  all  emphasis  on  exegesis,  and 
scarcely  taught   anything   else,   especially   Luther.      Indeed,   all  ^g 

things  considered.  Spener  did  his  most  important  work  in  the  1^ 

sphere  of  education.  Rather,  it  was  through  education  that  he 
most  beneficially  influenced  religion.  His  essay  On  Academic 
Studies,  dated,  Dresden,  February  10,  1690.  marks  the  beginning 
of  a  new  era  in  theological  education,  or  rather  the  beginning 
of  a  return  to  the  methods  of  the  Reformation.  lie  does  not 
repudiate  philosophy  as  a  mental  discipline,  and  he  even  speaks  ,' 
favorably  of  the  Cartesian  philosophy,  but  he  objects  to  the 
abuse  of  philosophy,  that  is,  to  the  scholastic  theology  which 
arose  from  "a  nefarious  commingling  of  the  Aristotelian  phil- 
osophy and  Christian  theology."  He  duly  recognizes  the  value 
and  importance  of  catechetical,  polemical,  symbolical,  moral, 
historical  and  homiletical  theology,  but  he  lays  the  supreme 
stress  on  exegetical  theology,  "since  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the 
sole  fountain  of  our  faith,  from  Avhich  all  theology  must  be 
sought.  Hence  it  cannot  be  denied  that  it  is  far  more  important 
to  be  engaged  with  the  fountain  than  with  the  stream."  But  he 
declares  that  "mention  must  be  made  of  the  Symbolical  Books 
in  which  our  Church,  as  regards  confession,  has  distinguished 
herself  from  other  assemblies.  They  err  W'ho,  contrary  to  the 
distinct  protest  of  our  confessors,  make  those  books  in  practice 
equal  to  the  Sacred  Books,  and  who  regard  it  as  all  one  that  a 
thing  is  found  in  those  and  in  the  Sacred  Books.  The  doctrines 
of  our  Symbolical  Books  have  all  their  truth  and  certainty,  not 
from  those  books,  but  from  the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  from 
which  they  ought  to  be  draAAoi."  He  insists  that  the  Symbolical 
Books  should  be  studied,  but  studied  in  subordination  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  with  reference  to  the  intention  of  the 
fathers,  t 

With  such  views  on  theological  education  we  are  not  surprised 
^  Concilia  Liitina,  I.,  224.  t  Concilia  Latina,  T.,  198  et  seqq. 


554  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THK    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

to  learn  that  Spener  encouraged  the  CoJlpgium  Philohihlkum 
founded  in  Leipzig  by  Augustus  Hermann  Francke,  John  Kas- 
par  Schade  and  Paul  Anton,  and  that  when  this  was  suppressed, 
at  the  instance  of  the  Leipzig  theological  professors,  he  induced 
the  Elector  of  Brandenburg  to. found  the  University  of  Halle, 
and  to  invite  to  its  theological  chairs  Francke  and  Anton  and 
Joachim  Justus  Breithaupt. 

Pietism  now  had  a  university  for  the  training  of  the  ministers 
of  the  Church  according  to  the  conceptions  of  Spener.  The 
professors  were  all  men  of  scientific  attainments  and  they  taught 
theology  in  a  truly  scientific  manner.  They  did  not  neglect 
Polemics,  nor  Dogmatics,  nor  Symbolics,  but  they  emphasized 
exegesis,  and  taught  a  truly  evangelical  theology  as  over  against 
the  scholastic  orthodoxy  which  still  reigned  in  the  other  German 
universities.  New  controversies  arose,  but  soon  hundreds  of 
students  were  pursuing  theological  studies  at  Halle. 

2.     The  Victory  of  Pietist)). 

The  learned  and  pious  Valentine  Ernest  Loescher,  Superin- 
tendent at  Dresden,  the  last  advocate  of  the  old  orthodoxy, 
attacked  the  Pietists  in  a  series  of  essays  published  in  the 
Unschuldige  Nachrichte)i.  This  is  by  far  the  most  learned  and 
acute  attack  ever  made  on  the  Pietists.  But  the  author  refrained 
from  violence  and  offensive  personalities,  thus  illustrating 
Spener 's  fourth  Desiderium.  He  was  answered  in  a  violent  and 
insulting  manner  by  Joachim  Lange  of  the  Halle  theological 
Faculty.  But  Loescher  showed  a  disposition  to  reach  an  under- 
standing with  his  opponents,  and  gradually  so  modified  his 
views  in  regard  to  Pietism  as  to  be  able  to  say  to  a  IMoravian 
congregation,  in  1736:  "You  are  a  God-fearing  congregation. 
Do  not  be  proud,  but  faithful.  You  have  the  pure  doctrine  as 
we  have,  only  we  do  not  have  your  order  of  government." 

David  Hollazius  (1648-1713),  sometimes  spoken  of  as  the  last 
of  the  dogmaticians,  was  true  to  the  Lutheran  doctrines,  but  he 
was  influenced  both  by  Syncretism  and  by  Pietism.  He  treats 
Syncretism  very  mildly,  and  does  not  even  mention  Pietism  in 
his  work  on  Theology.  But  he  reproduces  Spener 's  conception 
of  a  theologian  :  "A  true  theologian  cultivates  piety  in  his  whole 
heart  without  guile."  "In  a  general  sense  a  man  who  is  skilled 
in  theological  knowledge  is  called  a  theologian."  "In  a  special 
and  more  excellent  sense  the  regenerate  man  is  called  a  theolo- 
gian."* 

*  P.   14.     See  Gass,  ut  supra,  II.,  497. 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    AXD    OF    RATIONALISM.  555 

John  Francis  Buddeus  (1667-1729)  belongs  to  an  entirely  new 
era,  in  which  we  see  no  more  the  doniinancy  of  the  old  orthodoxy. 
In  his  Insfifutio  Theologiae  Dogmaticae,  five  books  published 
in  1724,  he  states  the  Lutheran  doctrines  firmly,  but  moderately, 
places  theology  on  a  scriptural  basis  and  is  sparing  in  the  use  of 
scholastic  terms.  He  says  nothing  about  the  ubiquity  of  the 
human  nature  of  Christ.  Syncretism  is  only  mildly  opposed. 
The  teaching  on  the  sacrament  has  not  the  tone  of  the  dogmatic 
era.  Stress  is  laid  on  Luther's  Oratio,  Meditatio,  Tentatio, 
^'from  which  it  follows  that  only  he  can  justly  and  properly  be 
called  a  theologian  who  is  endued  with  true  faith,  or  is  regener- 
ate." *  With  him  the  end  of  theology  was  the  practice  of  faith 
and  living  the  Christian  life.  He  lived  on  better  terms  with 
Spener,  and  was  better  satisfied  with  Zinzendorf  than  with 
Cyprian  and  Loescher.  In  his  brief  literary  account  of  the 
Pietistic  Controversy  he  shows  decided  sympathy  for  Spener. 

John  George  Waleh  (1693-1775),  Buddeus'  son-in-law,  Pro- 
fessor at  Jena  from  1718,  shows  still  more  sympathy  with  Piet- 
ism than  Buddeus  did.f  In  ^leusel's  Hand  Lexicon  he  is  de- 
scribed as  a  "theologian  who,  mediating  between  Orthodoxy  and 
Pietism,  held  fast  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  but 
declared  that  true  piety  is  the  supreme  end  of  all  theology  and 
the  greatest  ornament  of  the  theologian.  He  also  united  ex- 
traordinary learning  with  sincere  piety." 

In  the  year  1750  he  issued  an  edition  of  the  Symbolical  Books, 
Oerman  and  Latin,  with  an  Introduction.  He  holds  expressly 
with  Spener  that  the  Symbolical .  Books  are  not  inspired,  says 
that  symbolical  books  are  only  hypothetically  necessary,  that  not 
all  Lutheran  congregations  accept  all  the  Lutheran  Symbolical 
Books,  that  "one  is  preferred  to  the  other  and  has  greater 
authority:"  that  it  is  undeniable  that  the  Symbolical  Books 
contain  errors,  such  as  spurious  quotations,  the  misunderstand- 
ing and  false  application  of  passages  of  Scripture,  as  Rom.  14: 
'23:  Zach.  1:  12;  Ezek.  20:  25:  "as  also  some  expressions  are 
used  which  seem  questionable,  and  especially  do  they  seem  to 
favor  the  papists."  He  holds  that  the  Symbolical  Books  are 
authoritative  "in  points  of  faith."  Of  subscription,  he  says 
expressly:  "The  obligation  extends  to  the  doctrine  and  to  the 
truths  that  have  been  drawn  fi-om  the  Scriptures.  l)ut  not  to  the 
■secondary  matters  which  have  to  do  with  the  diction,  the  ar- 
rangement, the  expressions,  the  testimonies  explained,  and  the 

*  P.  60. 

t  Feligionsstreitiglceiten,  4  and  5,  pp.   1030   et  seqq. 


556  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

like,  which  they  contain.  The  doctrines  can  be  regarded  either 
in  themselves  as  they  lie  there,  or  in  reference  to  the  conclusions 
from  them.  If  the  latter  be  necessary,  natural,  not  forced,  then 
the  obligation  extends  also  to  these,  but  it  does  not  exist  when 
they  are  far-fetched  and  forced." 

Christian  Matthias  Pfaff  (1686-1760)  grew  up  under  the 
influence  of  the  Wiirtemberg  Pietism  and  exhibited  that  in- 
fluence to  the  end  of  his  life.  In  his  inaugural,  as  chancellor  of 
the  University  of  Tiibingen  in  1720,  he  expressed  himself  em- 
phatically against  those  who  "coldly  and  without  holy  anointing, 
but  only  with  general  preconceptions,  enter  upon  their  studies, 
pervert  theology  to  an  empty  theory  without  practice,  and  ex- 
pend against  heretics  the  zeal  which  they  ought  to  employ  against 
ungodliness."*  Against  the  ignorance  and  religious  indiffer- 
ence of  the  times  he  exerted  himself  with  great  zeal.  Nor  was  he 
uninfluenced  by  "the  unionistic  and  irenic  efforts  that  looked 
to  a  modification  of  the  confessional  differences  between  Luth- 
erans and  Reformed,  between  Catholics  and  Protestants.  More 
and  more  did  he  become  a  man  of  the  Illumination  which  had 
now  begun.  His  rule  was  the  intelligible  and  the  useful.  He 
still  defended  doctrine,  but  in  his  case  its  sharp  points  had  been 
broken  oft'. ' '  t 

In  1730  he  published  an  edition  of  the  Symbolical  Books  in 
Latin  with  a  Histoncal  Introduction.  He  declares  that  no  one 
ever  ascribed  tlicopneustia  and  infallibility  to  the  authors  of 
these  books,  "nor  do  we  make  them  equal  to  the  Divine  Word, 
which  ALONE  is  the  norm  and  rule  of  faith."  He  says  that 
the  idea  of  norm  does  not  belong  to  them,  except  only  in  a 
secondary  sense.  The  emphasis  which  he  places  on  ALONE 
(SOLUM)  is  exceedingly  suggestive. 

There  Avas  also  John  Albert  Bengel  (1687-1752),  another  Wiir- 
temberger,  a  pi-ofound  scholar,  the  father  of  New  Testament 
textual  criticism,  prelate  and  eonsistorial  counsellor,  a  Pietist 
through  and  through,  according  to  the  original  and  churchly 
conception.  One  has  only  to  read  his  Gnomon,  and  his  thoughts 
on  Dogmatics  and  Morals,  as  the  same  have  been  collected  by 
.  his  biographer,  to  be  convinced  of  his  theological  position.  He 
deplores  the  attempt  of  the  AVittenbergers  and  the  Hamburgers 
to  construct  a  new  symbolical  book  against  the  Pietists.  He 
declares  that  the  Augsburg  Confession,  as  compared  with  other 
books  composed  in   that   dark   age,   is  something  great.      "The 

*  Wurtembergisclie  Kirch  en  geschichte,  p.  485. 
t  Ut  supra. 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    AND    OF    RATIONALISM.  557 

other  Symbolical  Books  are  so  composed  that  they  also  ought 
to  be  studied,  even  though  they  did  not  have  historical  signifi- 
cance. Only  Ave  nuist  not  make  a  barricade  out  of  them  and 
thus  put  a  check  on  the  divine  truth  and  hinder  it  from  further 
expansion.  To  do  this  would  be  like  eouniianding  the  sun  not 
to  ascend,  higher  and  not  to  give  more  light,  because  on  a  sum- 
mer's morning  we  can  read  at  four  o'clock." 

In  regard  to  confessional  subscription  he  has  expressed  him- 
self thus :  ' '  The  Symbolical  Books  are  a  confession  of  faith  to 
which  the  Evangelical  Church  has  bound  itself.  The  purpose 
of  subscription  is  not.  indeed,  that  we  wish  to  bind  the  servants 
of  the  Church  to  every  particular  contained  in  them,  as,  for 
example,  to  every  exegetical  explanation,  but  we  thereby  only 
testify  that  we  do  not  approve  any  of  the  heresies  which  they 
reject.  For  instance,  in  the  entire  controversy  on  original  sin 
against  Flacius,  the  chief  thing  is  that  original  sin  is  not  a 
substance,  though  it  is  a  very  deep-seated  corruption.  He  who 
believes  this  proposition  can  easily  subscribe.  On  the  part  of 
superintendents  there  is  no  compulsion.  Should  anyone  make 
many  scruples,  then  there  arises  the  suspicion  that  there  is  a 
snake  in  the  grass.  ]Many  a  person  has  wished  to  be  relieved  of 
the  prolixity.  But  that  matter  cannot  be  changed.  We  sub- 
scribe cheerfully  (bona  fide  cum  libertate  animi).  Then  we 
conduct  our  ministry  according  to  conscience.  If  the  su- 
perintendents have  anything  against  anyone,  they  make  an  in- 
vestigation. But  it  is  not  possible,  especially  in  a  large  district, 
to  examine  everyone  on  all  points.  Luther  forced  no  one.  He 
declared  that  if  anyone  could  do  it  better,  he  should  do  it."* 

These  six  men,  Loescher,  Hollazius,  Buddeus,  Walch,  Pfaff. 
Bengel,  taken  together,  in  piety,  learning  and  influence,  ranked 
higher  in  their  day  than  any  other  theologians  of  the  age, 
Spener  and  Francke  excepted.  They  were  all,  though  not  in 
the  same  degree,  influenced  by  Pietism. f  The  last  three  named 
might  be  truly  regarded  as  Pietists.  Together  they  represent 
the  theological  thought  and  science  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
outside  of  Halle.  As  they  spoke  and  wrote,  so,  in  general, 
other  contemporaneous  Lutheran  theologians  spoke  and  wrote. 
And  now  one  has  only  to  recall  the  confessional  position  of 
Jena,  of  Tiibingen,  of  Wiirtemberg  in  the  second  half  of  the 

"  Bnrk,  ,7.  A.  BengeVs  Leben  nnd  Wirlen.  p.  72.  See  also  Dorner,  Rist. 
Prot.  Theology,  English  Translation,  It.,  p.  228,  note  2. 

t  For  Loescher,  see  Piinjer,  Hist,  of  Christ.  Philosophy  of  Seligion,  'Eng- 
lish Translation,  p.  280. 


558  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

sixteenth  and  throughout  the  seventeenth  century,  and  to  contrast 
it  with  what  appears  on  the  preceding  four  or  five  pages^ 
in  order  to  perceive  that  the  theological  mind  of  Germany  has 
undergone  a  momentous  change.  The  Lutheran  scholastic  theol- 
ogy has  entirely  disappeared,  except  in  so  far  as  it  is  advocated 
by  Loescher.  It  is  not  represented  by  a  single  dogmatic  or  sys- 
tematic treatise  produced  in  the  eighteenth  century.  The  Sym- 
bolical Books  are  still  held  in  reverence,  and  the  public  servants 
of  the  Church  are  still  required  to  subscribe  them,  but  they  are  no 
longer  called  i)ispired,nor  regarded  as  perfect  in  every  particular, 
and  subscription  is  made  to  the  substance  and  content  of  doc- 
trine, and  not  to  the  letter  and  form  of  expression.  Pietism 
lios  gained  the  victory*  The  six  thousand  and  more  theolo- 
gians who  have  gone  out  from  the  University  of  Halle  in  the 
first  twenty-nine  years  of  its  existence,  and  the  controversial 
agitation  have  revolutionized  theological  sentiment.  The  old 
orthodoxy  is  not  taught  in  a  single  lecture-room  in  Germany, 
and  we  hear  of  great  religious  awakenings  among  the  students 
of  Leipzig,  Jena  and  Tiibingen.  Pietism  has  brought  the  theo- 
logians, the  pastors  and  the  students  back  to  the  practical  recog- 
nition of  the  formal  principle  of  the  Reformation,  that  the 
Scriptures  alone  are  inspired,  and  that  they  are  primary  for 
faith  and  life,  and  consequently,  that  they  must  have  the  first 
place  in  theological  teaching  and  in  the  sermon.  The  theology 
of  the  unregenerate  is  repudiated,  and  the  Symbolical  Books 
are  held  only  a  little  more  rigidly  than  the  Old  Lutheran  Con- 
fessions were  held  prior  to  the  Peace  of  Augsburg,  1555.  See 
Chapter  XVIL  f 

3.  Philosophy. 
Rene  Descartes  is  regarded  as  the  father  and  founder  of 
modern  philosophy.  Dissatisfied  with  the  philosophies  current 
in  his  time,  because  they  started  with  principles  that  required 
to  be  proved,  he  began  by  calling  in  question  all  external  real- 
ity. He  announced  the  negative  principle  of  universal  doubt : 
De  omnibus  cluhitandum  est.  Soon  he  discovered  that  the  more 
he  thought,  the  more  he  doubted,  and  the  more  he  doubted, 
the  more  he  thought.  But  there  was  one  thing  which  he  could 
not  doubt,  namely,  his  own  existence.  Cogito  ergo  sum.  "I 
think,  therefore,  I  exist."  This  now  became  his  positive  prin- 
ciple, or  the  firm  starting  point  of  his  speculations.    It  is  the  phil- 

*  Luthardt,  Geschichte  der  Christ.  Ethik  seit  der  Hefonnaiion,  p.  295. 
t ^ee  v(m  Schubert,  Outlineft'of  Church  History,  p.  292. 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    A^D    OF    RATIONALISM.  559 

osophy  of  consciousness.  This  principle  lies  at  the  foundation 
of  all  knowledge,  thongh  it  is  only  the  knowledge  of  the  mind. 
It  does  not  inelnde  anything  that  may  be  predicated  of  body. 
Hence  wo  do  not  know  the  external  world. 

Descartes  also  affirmed  the  existence  in  ns  of  innate  ideas. 
We  have  an  innate  idea  of  God.  This  idea  comes  from  God 
himself  and  includes  the  idea  of  the  most  perfect  being,  that 
is.  among  other  attributes,  the  idea  of  the  veracity  of  God.  We 
may,  therefore,  infer  the  reality  of  things  external  to  mind, 
since  a  perfectly  veracious  God  would  not  deceive  us.  God  also 
is  the  necessary  existence.  In  the  strictest  sense  he  is  the  only 
existence.  ]\Iind  and  matter  exist,  but  in  a  subordinate  way. 
The  essence  of  mind  is  thought.  The  essence  of  matter  is  ex- 
tension. The  two  have  nothing  in  common.  He  also  developed 
the  idea  of  God  and  of  his  activity  in  such  a  way  as  to  make 
the  creature  a  mere  machine,  and  so  as  to  deprive  man  of  moral 
freedom. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  such  speculation,  on  the  one  hand,  lays 
the  foundation  for  an  excessive  subjectivism,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  that  it  strongly  tends  to  the  overthrow  of  authority  in 
religion.  Indeed,  the  question  may  be  asked.  To  what  extent 
does  the  Cartesian  philosophy  leave  a  rational  basis  for  the 
Christian  religion  ?  The  Roman  Catholic  Church,  to  some  ex- 
tent, answered  this  question  when  it  placed  the  works  of  Des- 
cartes in  the  Index  of  prohibited  books  donee  eovrigantur.  But 
this  philosophy  exerted  no  little  influence  on  theology,  at  first 
in  the  Netherlands,  and  then  in  Germany.  Its  effect  was  to 
call  into  doubt  many  things  that  had  been  taken  for  granted. 

John  Locke  took  a  course  directly  opposite  to  that  of  Des- 
cartes. He  denied  the  existence  of  innate  idea,s,  and  taught 
that  all  knowledge  is  based  on  sensation  and  reflection.  This 
philosophy  tended  to  materialism.  As  developed,  or  rather  as 
criticised,  by  Hume,  it  led  to  scepticism  in  the  matter  of  cause 
and  effect,  and  in  the  matter  of  the  credibility  of  miracles,  even 
to  the  denial  of  the  Ego  itself  as  an  independent  existence. 
And  with  this  went,  logically,  the  denial  of  personal  immortal- 
ity. The  philosophy  of  Locke  exerted  no  little  influence  in 
Germany. 

But  neither  Descartes,  nor  Locke,  nor  Hume  did  much,  if 
anything,  elirecthj  to  overthrow  Aristotelianism  in  Germany. 
This  achievement  was  reserved  for  Christian  Thomasius  (1655- 
1728).    He  began  by  asserting  that  the  theologians  had  not  made 


560  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

the  proper  distinction  between  the  truths  of  philosophy  and 
the  truths  of  revealed  religion,  and  that  they  had  invaded  the 
sphere  of  ethics  and  of  jurisprudence.  He  attacked  Aristotle 
right  and  left  as  the  unknown  God  to  whom  the  scholastics  had 
erected  an  altar.  "The  greatest  evil  in  this  connection  was, 
that  the  'school  foxes'  compelled  everything  to  go  into  the 
straight-jacket  of  the  syllogism,  and  that  they  would  determine 
everything  according  to  the  empty  schematism  of  Aristotle.  In 
order  to  break  its  supremacy  he  labored  to  introduce  a  uni- 
versally intelligible  and  useful  philosophy,  which  would  be 
available,  not  merely  for  the  school,  but  also  for  the  higher  life 
of  business.* 

Soon  Thouiasius  came  into  sharp  collision  with  the  theolo- 
gians, who  procured  his  banishment  from  Leipzig.  In  a  short 
time  he  settled  (1690)  at  Halle,  with  permission  to  deliver  lec- 
tures, and  when  the  university  was  founded  he  was  made  pro- 
fessor of  philosophy.  His  fundamental  principle  was  that  what 
agrees  with  reason  is  true,  and  what  does  not,  is  false.  Neces- 
sarily, then,  he  was  an  eclectic,  and  from  his  time  on  eclecticism 
had  a  home  in  Germany.  His  merit  is  that  he  freed  thought 
from  bondage  to  any  system.  The  influence  which  would  thus 
be  exerted  on  the  orthodoxy  of  the  seventeenth  century  is  at 
once  apparent,  especially  since  he  popularized  philosophical  sub- 
jects by  lecturing  and  writing  in  the  German  language.  Dorner 
expresses  a  correct  judgment  when  he  says  that  Thomasius  "es- 
sentially cooperated  by  his  much-feared,  biting  and  ready  pen, 
in  purifying  the  literary  atmosphere  from  theological  fanaticism 
and  learned  stupidity. "  f  It  can  scarcely  be  said  that  he  con- 
tributed anything  really  constructive  to  the  thought  of  his  age.i 

Gottfried  Wilhelm  Leibnitz  (1646-1716)  brought  the  doctrine 
of  innate  ideas  into  German  speculative  philosophy.  As  Spinoza 
had  posited  one  substance — all  is  God  and  God  is  all — Pantheism, 
so  Leibnitz  posited  an  infinite  number  of  monads,  each  one  of 
which  mirrors  the  universe  and  is  a  kind  of  God  accoi'ding  to 
its  own  nature.  Between  these  monads  God  has  preestablished 
a  harmonious  operation,  so  that,  while  mind  and  body  seem  to 
operate  on  each  other,  they  only  act  in  harmony  with  each  other. 
Also,  this  world  is  the  best  possible  world.  God  could  not  have 
created  a  better  world  than  the  one  which  he  did  create.     There 

*  Piinjer,  ut  supra,  p.  527.  See  Christian  Thomasius  nach  seinen  Schick- 
salen  und  Schriften  dargestellt.     Von  H.  Liulen. 

t  History  of  Protestant    Theology,  English   Translation,  II.,   p.   259. 
J:  See  Luden,  Ctiristian    T]iomasius,  passim. 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    AND    OF    RATIONALISM.  561 

is  evil  in  the  world,  but  it  was  unavoidable  that  evil  should 
exist :  ^Metaphysical  evil,  which  is  inseparable  from  the  creat- 
ure; physical  evil,  as  suffering,  which  is  often  employed  as  an 
instrument  for  improvement;  moral  evil,  which  God  permits, 
because  it  is  a  necessary  condition  of  freedom,  without  which 
there  can  be  no  virtue.  In  the  case  of  moral  evil,  God  gives  the 
power  to  act,  though  the  ethically  evil  quality  to  act  belongs  to 
man,  though  it  springs  from  his  limitations.  He  asserts  the 
natural  immortality  of  man,  but  he  does  not  seem  to  make  a 
clear  distinction  between  natural  and  revealed  religion.  He 
holds  that  "we  do  not  learn  anything  as  to  whether  and  where 
a  divine  revelation  has  actually  taken  place.  Moses  and  Christ, 
although  divine  prophets,  are  still  represented  only  as  founders, 
or  rather  as  renovators  of  natural  religion."*  He  holds  that 
Christianity  is  the  true  religion,  as  natural  religion  made  into  a 
universal  law  by  Christ,  but  that  it  has  been  corrupted  and  falsi- 
fied. "Godliness  has  been  turned  into  ceremonies  quite  against 
the  opinion  of  the  Divine  ^Master,  and  doctrine  has  become  en- 
cumbered with  formulae." 

Even  with  this  brief  exposition  of  the  Leibnitzian  philosophy 
before  us,  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  learn  that  the  author 
has  been  regarded  as  the  founder  of  the  German  Aufklarung, 
though  he  did  not  for  a  time  exert  much  direct  influence  on  the 
scholars  of  his  countr}-,  since  the  most  important  of  his  books 
were  written  in  French,  and  since  he  did  not  work  out  a  com- 
prehensive system.  But  the  thought  is  there,  and  it  only  awaited 
an  elaborator  and  popularizer.  This  it  found  in  Christian  AVolff 
(1679-175-i),  student  of  philosophy  and  theology  at  Jena,  and 
lecturer  on  Mathematics  and  Philosophy  in  Leipzig  in  1703,  where 
his  work  attracted  the  attention  of  Leibnitz.  In  1706  he  settled 
at  Halle  as  Professor  of  Logic,  Metaphysics  and  Ethics,  and 
lectured  with  such  applause  as  to  attract  very  many  of  the 
students  from  the  lecture-rooms  of  the  i)fofessors  of  theology, 
who  managed  to  bring  about  his  dismissal  through  a  cabinet 
order  from  Berlin  under  peril  of  the  halter,  should  he  remain 
forty-eight  hours.  This  occurred  in  1723.  Soon  he  was  the 
most  famous  professor  in  Germany.  Seven  universities  sought 
him,'  and  four  faculties  chose  him,  each  as  one  of  its  members. 

While   professor   at   Marburg    (1723-1740)    he   published   his 

*  See  Piinjer,  pp.  480  et  seqq.  Bowen,  Modern  Philosophy,  Chap.  VII. 
Leibnitz,  Xeic  Essays  on  Hiunan  Understoniling.  Translated  by  Langley. 
^Maemillan  Company,  1896.  The  ilonadology.  Translated  by  Latta.  Claren- 
den  Press. 

8fi 


562  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

epoch-making  Thcologia  XaturaHs  (1736),  in  which  he  uses  the 
cosniological  argument  to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  God,  de- 
chires  that  God  called  the  world  into  existence  by  his  will,  and 
"permitted  sin  as  a  means  for  good.    On  the  one  hand  the  Wolffian 
philosophy  excited  a  great  amount  of  opposition,  so  that  by  the 
year  1740  it  was  known  to  have  seventy  literary  opponents,  and 
on  the  other  hand  it  called  forth  a  great  amount  of  approbation, 
so  that  as  early  as  1737  one  hundred  and  seven  literary  Wolffians 
were  known  to  exist.    Piinjer  says  that  "all  the  universities  and 
all  the  schools  were  dominated  by  them ;  the  whole  of  the  sciences 
were  cultivated  in  accordance  with  the  mathemati co-demonstra- 
tive method,  and  according  to  the  criterion  of  the  sufficient  rea- 
son."*    ]\Ien  administered  medicine,  wrote  poetry,  catechised, 
preached  and  prayed,  according  to  the  Wolffian  philosophy.   Even 
Hebrew  grannnars  and  works  on  the  accents  appeared  according 
to  the  mathematical  method.     Soon  it  overcame  the  opposition 
of  the  theologians  and  they  theologized  according  to  the  system 
of  Wolff'.    Frank  has  described  the  situation  thus :     ' '  The  Holy 
Scriptures,  as  the  source  of  doctrinal  proof  and  the  exegesis  of 
the  Scriptures,  passed  to  the  rear.    The  philosophical  disquisition 
took  its  place.      Students  were  no   longer  willing  to   suck   lac 
ig)iorantiae  from  the  professors,  or  to  study  theology  prior  to 
philosophy.     The  revealed  doctrines  were  in  general  held,  but 
were  placed  on  the  tripod  of  the  Wolffian  })hilosophy  and  were 
sought  to  be  confirmed  by  the  probable  grounds  of  reason.     P^or 
the  majority  the  real  arena  was  Natural  Theology  and  with  this 
the  proofs  for  the  existence  of  God.     Wolf¥  had  said:     'God 
created  the  world  for  the  purpose  of  making  known  his  invisible 
nature,  especially  his  wisdom,  power  and  goodness.     Hence  it 
were  Avell,  if,  in  their  study  of  nature,  men  would  give  attention 
chiefly  to  that  which  serves  to  that  end.'     Then  the  pastors,  im- 
parting a  theological  coloring  to  their  favorite  scientific  studies, 
like  ants,  brought  from  every  realm   of  nature  proofs  for  the 
existence  of  an   all-powerful,  and  all-wise   and  an  all-gracious 
God,  and  proofs  for  the  sufficient  reason  why  things  are,  rather 
than  are  not,  and  why  they  are  so  and  not  otherwise."  t 

Xow,  the  Wolffian  philosophy  is  but  the  culmination  of  the 
philosophical  thinking  which  began  with  Descartes.  The  phi- 
losophers differed  from  each  other,  the  systems  differed  from 
each  other,  the  systems  were  not  internally  harmonious,  but  they 

*  Ut. supra,  p.  528. 

t  Gescliichte  tier  Frotestantischero  TTieologie,  II.,  400. 


OF    rHILOSOPHY    AND    OF    RATIONALISM.  563 

conspired,  consciously  or  unconsciously,  in  the  production  of 
a  common  result.  The  new  philosophy  liberated  the  human  rea- 
son; it  routed  the  "school-foxes";  it  taught  men  to  do  their  own 
thinking.  In  reaching  this  sublime  conclusion,  philosophy  was 
not  a  little  assisted  by  jurisprudence  through  Hugo  Grotius  and 
Samuel  Pufendorf,  who  wrought  in  a  free  and  independent  way 
in  the  field  of  theology.  Leibnitz  was  primarily  a  jurist. 
Thomasius  began  his  career  at  Leipzig  with  lectures  on  Grotius 
and  Pufendorf,  and  his  most  influential  work  in  the  direction  of 
enlightenment,  the  one  that  gave  the  greatest  offense  to  his 
theological  contemporaries,  bore  a  title  that  is  at  least  half 
juristic.  These  jurists  all  discarded  the  syllogistic  method  and 
emphasized  the  place  and  value  of  the  human  understanding. 
Pufendorf  was  specially  hostile  to  the  "peripatetic  knights,"  as 
he  called  the  disciples  of  Aristotle,  who  applied  the  syllogism  in 
all  their  excogitations,  and  failed  to  make  the  proper  distinction 
between  theology  and  philosophy.  In  a  word,  the  new  philosophy 
in  its  essential  aspects  was  a  prolonged  battle  against  the  reigning 
scholastic  theology,  and  in  this  it  joined  hands  with  Pietism, 
though  in  some  of  its  manifestations  it  found  a  bitter  foe  in 
Pietism,  especially  in  its  earlier  j^henomena  through  Thomasius 
and  Wolff.* 

But  by  and  by  the  new  philosophy  gained  the  victory.  It 
not  only  downed  the  scholastic  theology,  but  it  struck  alliance 
v.'ith  Pietism,  as  w^hen,  in  1740,  Wolff  was  brought  back  to  Halle 
in  a  triumphal  chariot,  taught  philosophy  there  again  to  the  end 
of  his  days  on  earth.  In  the  department  of  Biblical  Criticism 
it  soon  undermined  the  authority  of  the  Elzevir  Text  through 
Bengel  and  Wettstein.  In  the  Old  Testament,  John  David 
Michaelis,  freed  from  the  trannnels  of  the  past,  investigated  the 
text  and  the  history  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  ad- 
vanced and  improved  the  historical  method  of  interpretation, 
by  which  it  was  found  that  many  passages  of  Scripture  could  not 
be  applied  as  they  had  been  previously  applied ;  while  John 
August  Ernesti  introduced  a  better  method  of  interpreting  the 
New  Testament,  demolished  the  theory  that  the  New  Testament 
was  written  in  pure  Greek,  and  overthrew  the  doctrine  of  em- 
phases, which  stood  in  the  way  of  a  proper  historical  and  gram- 
matical interpretation  of  the  New  Testament.    And  a  new  spirit 

*  See  von  Schubert.  Oidlines  of  Church  History,  pp.  284,  296  et  seqq., 
and  Baur,  JDogmengescMchte,  III.,  325  et  seqq.,  and  451  et  seqq.,  for 
sketches  on  the  influence  of  Leibnitz  and  Wolff. 


•564  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IX    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISiM, 

entered  into  the  composition  of  Church  History  through  Bud- 
deus,  Pfaff  and  IMosheim.  History  began  to  be  written  as  a 
science  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting  the  course  of  events,  and 
not  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining  a  thesis,  or  for  the  pur- 
pose of  furnishing  materials  to  be  used  in  constructing  and  de- 
fending dogma. 

It  was  in  the  department  of  Dogmatics,  however,  that  the 
Wolffian  philosophy  exerted  its  greatest  influence.  Men  under- 
took to  construct  systems  of  theology  according  to  the  Wolffian 
method  of  argumentation.  The  most  prominent  of  these  were 
Jacob  Carpovius  (1699-1768),  first  at  Jena  and  then  at  Weimar, 
and  Siegmund  Jacob  Baumgarten  *  (1706-1757),  after  1730  pro- 
fessor at  Halle.  The  former  published  (1737-1765)  his  Tkeologia 
Kevelata  Dogmatica,  Methodo  Scientifica  Adornata.  The  title 
at  once  indicates  the  "method."  The  Preface  is  virtually  a 
laudation  and  defense  of  the  "scientific  method"  in  its  applica- 
tion to  theology.  The  author  professes  to  understand  the 
Wolffian  method,  but  regrets  that,  because  he  had  not  studied 
mathematics,  he  cannot  properly  apply  it.  But  he  has  applied 
it  in  such  a  way  as  to  clothe  the  Lutheran  doctrines  "in  algebraic 
and  mathematical  garments  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  light 
that  enlightens  men  unto  salvation  shine  more  brightly  by  being 
polished."!  His  work  shows  little  or  no  influence  from  the 
Symbolical  Books,  though  he  allows  that  they  "are  only  norma 
normata."  1  He  tries  to  demonstrate  the  entire  system  of  Chris- 
tian doctrines  so  that  they  may  be  understood  by  the  human  rea- 
son. His  dependence  on  Wolff  is  apparent,  but  he  has  certainly 
constructed  the  coldest,  the  most  formal,  the  most  unserviceable 
exhibition  of  the  Christian  doctrines  that  has  ever  been  written.  It 
has  been  well  described  by  Gass :  "In  Carpovius  the  treatment  of 
doctrine  degenerates  into  a  scholasticism  whose  dense  texture 
leaves  no  interstices  through  which  the  religious  spirit  may 
flash,  "i;  His  work  created  a  short-lived  sensation,  but  then  it 
fell  into  an  oblivion  as  dense  as  that  which  surrounds  some  of 
the  dogmatic  and  polemical  efforts  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

Baumgarten 's  EvangeliscJie  Glauhenslehre,  published  after  his 
death  in  three  volumes  by  Semler,  may  be  called  the  Pietistic 

*  Dorner    calls    Baumgarten    "a    personified    compendium    of    modified 

<^'lnnx'li  doctrine,  Pietism  and  Wolffianisni. "  Histoni  of  Protestant  TJie- 
vloqy,  II.,  281. 

t  Frank,  II.,  402.    See  Gass,  III.,  168  et  seqq. 

i  Tom.,  I.,  298. 

§  Geschichte.  TIT..  173. 


OF    THILOSOPHY    AND    OF    KATIOXALISM.  5C5 

Didactic.  A  Dogmatic  in  the  sense  of  the  Loci,  or  of  the  Systema 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  it  cannot  be  called.  It  possesses 
neither  their  scheme  nor  their  spirit.  It  is  Wolffian  in  form,  but 
Pietistic  in  spirit.  The  author  devotes  four  theses  to  the  discus- 
sion of  Oratio,  Meditatio,  Tentatio,  "as  helps  for  the  salutanj 
or  living  knowledge  of  the  divine  truths."  The  first  is  a  habitus 
supernaturalis;  the  second  consists  in  a  careful  study  of  the 
divine  truths  in  their  historical  connection,  and  in  their  rela- 
tions one  with  another ;  the  third  is  the  application  of  the  truths 
learned  to  our  own  relations  in  life.  Should  these  helps  be  em- 
ployed merely  for  the  advancement  of  the  science  of  theology, 
they  are  thereby  enfeebled.  Baumgarten  also  closes  the  discus- 
sion of  each  doctrine  with  a  disquisition  on  the  comforts  and  the 
duties  that  arise  from  the  doctrine,  reminding  us,  in  this  proced- 
ure, of  Spener's  sermons.  He  presents  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
of  the  sacraments  in  a  didactic,  but  not  in  a  controversial  form. 
He  denies  that  ubiquity  belongs  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ, 
and  thinks  that  the  expression  uhiquitas  cxtensiva  ought  not  to 
be  used.*  He  declares  that  exorcism  has  no  foundation,  either 
in  the  command  of  God  or  in  the  necessity  of  the  thing.  It  may 
be  employed  as  an  adiaphoron,  but  should  not  be  required  of 
anyone.t  He  has  been  regarded  as  the  bridge  over  which  his  dis- 
ciples advanced  in  the  direction  of  Rationalism. 

And  now  if  we  inquire  about  the  Symbolical  Books,  we  find 
them  in  existence  rather  than  in  influence.  They  are  not  quoted 
by  Baumgarten  in  his  GUmlenslehre.  They  are  not  regarded  as 
the  test  or  as  the  limit  of  theological  thinking.  New  views  and 
new  methods  appear  on  every  hand.  The  Aristotelian  Schema- 
tism has  disappeared ;  though  in  so  far  as  theology  has  come  into 
bondage  to  the  AA^olffian  method,  it  has  gained  very  little  by  the 
change  of  masters.  But  in  so  far  as  in  consequence  of  the  new 
philosophy,  men  were  led  or  driven  to  a  deeper  and  more  com- 
prehensive study  of  the  Scriptures,  theology  has  much  for  which 
to  be  thankful. 

4.     Bationalism. 

Historians  have  not  been  agreed  as  to  who  or  what  is  respon- 
sible for  Rationalism.  The  defenders  and  advocates  of  the  old 
Orthodoxy  have  usually  laid  the  blame  on  the  Pietists  and  on 
Pietism.  The  Pietists  have  charged  it  to  the  account  of  the  old 
Orthodoxy.  In  our  judgment  both  are  to  blame.  The  old  Ortho- 
doxy had  become  chiefly  a  religion  of  the  understanding.    It  con- 

*Vol.  II.,  108.  tVol.  III.,  321. 


566  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

tained  very  little  for  the  heart ;  and  it  had  produced  very  un- 
evangelieal  conditions  in  Germany,  as  for  instance,  Caesaro- 
papism,  hierarchical  notions  of  the  ministry,  the  virtual  restora- 
tion of  the  opus  operatum.  Pietism,  which  from  the  begin- 
ning had  scarcely  laid  sufficient  stress  on  the  studj'  of  the- 
ology as  a  science,  in  the  second  half  of  the  eighteenth  century 
became,  in  many  of  its  manifestations,  a  veritable  travesty  of 
Christianity,  and  expressed  itself  ostentatiously  in  groans  and 
pious  ejaculations.  Such  an  exhibition  of  Christianity  could  not 
satisfy  the  religious  understanding.  The  joint  result  of  the  in- 
teraction and  counteraction  of  the  two  extremes  was  confusion. 
The  new  philosophy  intervened  to  work  the  Aufhlarung.  \Ye 
may  say,  therefore,  that  the  immediate  progenitor  of  Rationalism 
was  the  new  philosophy.  Repelled  by  the  old  Orthodoxy  and  dis- 
gusted with  the  new  Pietism,  thinking  men  groped  round  to  find 
something  that  could  satisfy  both  the  understanding  and  the 
heart  at  the  same  time.  Biblical  Criticism,  History,  Didactic,  all 
influenced  more  or  less  by  the  reigning  philosophy,  pointed  the 
way,  for  scholars  in  general  had  come  to  feel  that  they  must 
follow  reason  and  truth  whithersoever  they  might  lead,  though 
many  still  protested  against  the  new  philosophy,  or  rather 
against  its  excessive  use  in  natural  religion,  since  natural  relig- 
ion, however  valuable  it  might  be  as  a  Pedagogic,  could  not  lead 
to  the  discovery  of  Christ.  Thus  we  have  for  a  time  the  struggle 
between  Supranaturalism  and  Rationalism.  The  former  based 
Christianity  directly  on  a  revelation  from  God  and  declared 
that  it  exhibits  truths  through  prophecy  and  miracles  which  can- 
not be  known  by  the  human  reason.  The  latter  accepted  reason 
as  the  supreme  arbiter,  so  that  whatever  does  not  agree  with  the 
conclusions  of  the  human  reason,  whatever  cannot  be  compre- 
hended by  the  human  reason,  does  not  form  a  part  of  the 
Rationalist's  creed.  This  is  essentially  the  position  taken  b>' 
Johann  Salomo  Sender,  who  is  regarded  as  the  father  of  theo- 
logical Rationalism.  In  his  investigation  of  the  Canon  of 
Scripture,  he  denied  that  the  Canon  had  been  formed  accord- 
ing to  a  plan,  and  tried  to  show  that  the  books  of  the  Bible  were 
brought  together  by  some  accidental  considerations,  and  that 
they  were  not  intended  to  be  a  norm  of  faith  for  all  men.  The 
Old  Testament  was  intended  for  the  Jews.  INIatthew  wrote  his 
Gospel  for  the  Jews  beyond  Palestine,  and  John  wrote  for  Greek 
Christians.  Jesus  and  the  apostles  acconnnodated  themselves 
to  the  Jewish  myths  and  interpretations.    Paul  did  not  lay  the 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    AM)    OF    RATIONALISM.  567 

chief  emphasis  on  miracles  and  histoiy — that  to  him  was 
"flesh" — but  upon  the  "Spirit."  Paul  was  the  first  to  make 
Christianity  a  universal  religion.  The  Catholic  Epistles  were 
written  for  the  purpose  of  uniting  Jewish  and  Gentile  Christians. 
Only  that  can  be  regarded  as  permanent  in  Christianity  which 
contributes  to  our  moral  improvement. 

The  effect  of  such  views,  united  with  the  reigning  philosophy 
as  employed  and  developed  by  other  theologians,  soon  brought 
Rationalism  to  ascendency  in  nearly  all  the  theological  faculties, 
though  not  by  any  means  in  every  case  to  the  same  degree  of 
boldness.  Various  treatises  on  dogmatics  were  produced,  from 
which  the  supernatural  element  was  almost  entirely  excluded. 
Wegscheider's  Institutiones  Theologiae  Christianae  Dogmaticae 
(1815.  Edit  10  Quiiita  in  1825)  may  be  regarded  as  the  true 
representative  of  Rationalism  in  the  department  of  Dogmatics. 
The  book  is  dedicated,  with  an  elaborate  eulogy,  "to  the  blessed 
manes  of  Martin  Luther."  In  the  Preface  (1825)  the  author 
proposes  first  to  state  "the  system  of  SupranatnraUsm  according 
to  the  symbolical  form  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  with  additions 
from  the  Reformed  Confessions,"  then  to  add  the  history  of 
each. dogma,  and  also  to  exhibit  the  purer  type  of  the  doctrine 
of  religion  in  accordance  with  the  laws  of  the  human  reason, 
"which  is  called  the  system  of  Rationalism."  The  doctrine  of 
Inspiration  (§44)  is  that  the  authors  of  the  Scriptures,  Deo 
juvante,  consigned  their  pious  thoughts  to  letters.  These  thoughts 
were  intended  only  for  their  contemporaries;  but  they  were  so 
arranged  that  the  knowledge  and  the  teaching  of  the  Christian 
religion,  which  are  to  be  adapted  to  an  age  of  superior  culture, 
can  be  derived  from  them. 

Christ  is  a  man  who  earned  the  right  to  be  called  the 
Son  of  God;  his  death  was  a  sign  that  sacrifices  have  been 
abolished.  God  is  not  a  blood-thirsty  IMoloch ;  it  is  only  necessary 
for  the  sinner  to  mend  his  life;  the  resurrection  was  recovery 
from  a  swoon ;  the  ascension  was  a  myth  like  that  in  regard  to 
Romulus;  righteousness  before  God  is  not  acquired  by  works, 
nor  only  by  faith,  but  by  a  disposition  well-pleasing  to  God; 
the  effect  of  the  Word  is  natural;  there  are  no  supernatural 
operations  of  God  upon  man :  the  sacraments  are  mere  symbols ; 
Baptism  is  a  rite  of  consecration;  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  me- 
morial. 

Rationalism  gained  the  ascendency  also  in  the  sphere  of  prac- 
tical theology.    The  old  liturgies  were  discarded  and  new  forms 


568  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    ERA    OF    PIETISM, 

of  worship  of  the  milk-and-water  type  Avere  introduced.  The 
proposition  was  made  to  use  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's 
Supper,  these  Avords :  '"Enjoy  this  bread;  may  the  spirit  of 
worship  rest  upon  you  Avith  full  blessing !  Enjoy  a  little  A\'ine ! 
No  virtuous  poAA-er  lies  in  this  Avine-.  it  lies  in  you,  in  God's  doc- 
trine, and  in  God."  *  The  good  old  hymns  AA'ere  so  philistianized 
as  to  be  deprived  of  their  rhythm  and  of  their  evangelical  senti- 
ment, and  the  music  employed  in  many  cases  Avas  the  music  of 
the  opera  and  of  the  dance.f  The  preaching  in  most  of  the  pul- 
pits AAas  as  outlandish,  as  inane,  as  unevangelical  as  AA-as  that 
described  in  the  preceding  chapter  of  this  book.  "For  conver- 
sion or  regeneration,  they  spoke  of  amendment  of  life ;  for  justi- 
fication, of  forgiveness  on  condition  of  repentance ;  for  the  Holy 
Spirit,  of  the  exercise  of  the  higher  reason ;  for  the  atonement 
of  Christ,  of  the  spirit  of  sacrifice  AAiiich  He  has  taught  us  by 
his  example,  and  so  on."  t  The  morals  of  the  people  sunk  to  a 
low  level.  The  preaching  of  "morality"  and  of  "common  sense" 
in  religion  brought  its  oAvn  nemesis.^ 

But  hoAv  did  the  Creeds  fare  under  the  rule  of  Rationalism? 
Formally  and  externally  they  stood  in  their  place.  Even  leading 
Rationalists  did  not  demand  their  abolition.  But  in  general, 
they  AA'ere  held  in  Ioaa'  esteem  and  exerted  very  little  influence 
on  theological  thinking,  or  on  the  preaching  of  the  times.  Semler 
lectured  on  the  Symbolical  Books,  and  published  an  Apparatus 
on  the  same  (1775),  in  AA'hich  he  speaks  of  "our  symbolical 
books."  But  he  declares  in  the  Preface  that  Luther's  catechisms 
contain  matters  ill-adapted  to  public  instruction  and  that  the 
Formula  of  Concord,  aside  from  its  historical  character,  has  no 
great  or  permanent  A-alue  "for  us,"  and  says  that  it  is  not 
required  of  theologians  that  they  shall  not  depart  at  all  from  the 
authority  and  norm  of  the  Symbolical  Books :  ' '  Therefore,  pro- 
vided the  sacred  right  of  the  Lutheran  congregations  be  pre- 
served, proA'ided  the  members  groAv  in  the  Christian  virtues, 
safe  from  ungodly  tyranny  in  sacred  matters,  and  from  noxious 
errors  such  as  perA^ert  the  true  sah'ation  of  man :  in  other  things 
it  is  free  to  CA^ery  diligent  and  faithful  minister  to  say  nothing 
about  the  articles  not  richtly  set  forth  in  this  or  that  place  in 
those  books,  such  as  the  Descent  of  Christ,  the  third  use  of  the 

*  Hagenbaeh,  Historii  of  the  Church  in  the  18th  and  19th  Centuries,  I., 
313,  notes. 

t  Hurst,  History  of  Rationalism,  p.  195.    Hagenbaeh,  II.,  141. 

tKer's  History  of  Preaching,  p.  247. 

§  See  Hase,  History  of  the  Chr.  Church.     Eng.  Transl.,  pp.  .544-5. 


OF    PHILOSOPHY    AND    OF    RATIONALISM.  569 

Mosaic  law,  the  oral  supernatural  inanducation  of  the  body  of 
Christ  without  its  salutary  efficacy,  etc.,  or  to  explain  them  better 
and  more  fully." 

This  statement  of  a  fact  is  confirmed  by  another  Rationalist 
of  deepest  dye,*  who,  in  the  Preface  to  his  Systema  Theologiae 
Lutheranae  Orthodoxum  (1785),  says:  "There  are  men  sneaking 
around  among  us  who  seem  to  profess  the  official  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  from  which  they  get  their  living;  but  in  reality 
they  retain  scarcely  anything,  except  the  terms  of  the  old  theo- 
logians, to  Avhich  they  give  different  conceptions,  so  that  by  an 
ambiguous  style  of  teaching,  the  superintendents  of  the  Church 
are  deceived  and  students  are  confounded,  and,  midway  between 
barbarism  and  wisdom,  are  kept  swimming  just  as  in  a  vast 
whirlpool." 

Bretschneider,  another  Rationalist,  has  borne  similar  testi- 
mony. In  his  Handbuch  cler  Dogmatik  des  Evangelisch-Luther- 
ischen  Kirche  (1814.  1822,  1828)  he  says:  "It  is  evident  that 
our  Church,  when  she  declares  that  these  books  (the  Symbolical 
Books)  contain  her  confession  of  faith,  does  not  have  reference  to 
their  entire  content  in  the  most  rigid  sense,  nor  mean  that  such  a 
declaration  is  to  be  applied  without  exception  to  all  that  they 
contain,  but  she  quietly  and  as  a  matter  of  course  has  reference 
to  the  parts  of  the  content  of  the  Symbolical  Books,  which  contain 
doctrine  and  confession.  For  a  large  part  of  the  content  is  in  no 
sense  of  a  character  to  belong  to  the  Christian  faith,  as  for 
example,  the  historical  introductions,  the  preface  to  the  Augsburg 
Confession,  and  to  the  Catechisms,  the  status  coutroversiae  before 
each  article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  the  prayers  in  the  Cate- 
chisms. What,  according  to  the  content,  is  in  no  sense  doctrine 
and  does  not  belong  to  doctrine,  can  never  be  made  a  doctrinal 
prescription  or  be  reckoned  a  confession  of  doctrine.  It  must 
also  be  understood  that  the  Church  has  not  meant  to  sanction 
the  entire  content,  but  only  the  doctrine  and  the  confession  of 
these  books,  as  that  is  declared  in  the  Saxon  formula  of  subscrip- 
tion." t 

Bretschneider  Avas  for  a  time  professor  of  philosophy  and 
theology  at  Wittenberg,  and  from  1816  general  superintendent 
at  Gotha.  He  speaks,  therefore,  from  the  standpoint  of  knowl- 
edge and  authority  in  regard  to  a  fact.  He  tells  us  in  a  note 
that  ' '  in  the  religious  oath  prescribed  in  Saxony  it  is  only  meant 

*  C.  F.  Bahrdt,  notorious  for  his  immoral  character. 
tVol.  I.,  29. 


570  THE    SYMBOLICAL    BOOKS    IN    THE    EKA    OF    PIETISM. 

that  the  teachers  of  the  Church  'shall  persevere  in  the  pure 
doctrine  and  Christian  Confession  of  these  lands,  as  the  same 
are  contained  in  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and  are 
explained  in  the  Book  of  Concord.'  "  But  that  the  Symbolical 
Books  did  not  exert  much  influence  on  Bretschneider,  either  as 
a  theologian  or  as  an  ecclesiastical  official,  is  evident  from  his 
Handhuch;  and  that  they  had  in  general  lost  very  much  of  their 
influence  under  the  rationalistic  thought  of  the  age  is  shown  by 
the  fact  that  they  scarcely  ever  emerge  high  enough  to  be  seen 
either  in  the  best  representative  of  the  Halle  Biblical  School 
(George  Christian  Knapp,  1753-1825),  or  in  the  best  representa- 
tives of  the  supranaturalistic  school  of  Tiibingen,  Storr  and 
Flatt,  who  in  their  Handbook  of  Dogmatic  seem  to  have  been 
more  influenced  by  Immanuel  Kant  than  by  the  Symbolical 
Books.  Though  there  were  those  who  still  defended  the  Sym- 
bolical Books,  and  who  did  not  bow  the  knee  to  the  Moloch  of 
Rationalism. 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

Rationalism  brought  theological  confusion,  ecclesiastical 
disorder  and  moral  declension  upon  Protestant  Germany.  It  had 
driven  Supranaturalism  from  one  concession  to  another,  until 
the  line  that  separated  the  two  had.  in  many  instances,  almost 
disappeared.*  The  leading  works  on  Biblical  Literature  and  on 
systematic  theology  seem  to  have  had  their  point  of  contact  in 
supporting  a  religion  of  reason,  rather  than  a  religion  of  revela- 
tion. Schleiermacher's  epoch-making  work,  Discourses  on  Re- 
ligion  addressed  to  the  Cultured  among  its  Despisers,  implies 
in  the  title,  and  declares  in  the  text,  that  ''now  especially  the 
life  among  the  cultured  people  is  far  from  anything  that  might 
have  the  resemblance  of  religion. "  f  Of  the  ecclesiastical  dis- 
order, and  of  the  moral  declension,  we  learn  only  too  much  from 
the  historians.!  The  German  people  generally  had  lost  their 
ideals,  both  patriotic  and  religious.  To  this  loss,  no  doubt,  is 
due  the  terrible  humiliation  at  Jena  in  1806.  But  when  the 
German  people  awoke  to  a  sense  of  their  humiliation  they  began 
to  turn  for  help  to  the  God  of  their  fathers.  Their  war-songs 
were  now  hymns  of  devotion,  and  their  battle-cries  were  prayers 
to  "the  King  of  Glory,  the  Lord  mighty  in  battle."  Germany 
had  grown  tired  of  Rationalism,  tired  of  "a  religion  of  moral- 
ity," of  a  religion  of  "self-redemption."  Some  cried,  "Back 
to  Luther,"  others  cried,  "Forward  from  Luther."  The  faith 
of  the  great  religious  hero  rose  in  vision  before  them,  and  the 
spirit  of  Ein  feste  Burg  spoke  in  their  hearts.  Germany  stood 
on  the  threshold  of  a  new  Reformation.  The  man  who  pointed 
the  way  was  at  hand. 

1.     Schleiermacher. 
Here  was  a  man  who  was  at  the  same  time  two  men.     The 
one  belonged  to  the  eighteenth  century.     The  other  belonged  to 

*  See  Reinhard's  Gestdndnisse.  Letter  IX.  Failing  to  obtain  a  copy  of 
Reinhard's  Gestdndnisse  in  the  original,  we  employed  a  translation  published 
by  Sheldon  and  Company,  New  York,  in  1868. 

t  First  Discourse. 

t  Kurtz,  III.,  §  172;  Hagenbach,  ut  supra.  II..  14(i,  1-il :  Hase,  Church 
History,  §  §  445,  446. 

(571) 


572  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE   NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

the  nineteenth  century.  The  latter  prevailed  over  the  former  and 
drew  the  younger  generation  after  him.  He  was  a  philosopher^ 
and  rose  superior  to  the  Illnminati  in  the  very  thing  which  they 
regarded  as  supreme.  He  Avas  a  Christian  of  the  Pietistic  type, 
and  was  animated  with  a  sincere  love  for  the  Christ  they  de- 
spised. His  philosophy  and  his  piety  were  so  blended  that  each 
illumined  and  sustained  the  other.  As  a  hundred  years  earlier 
Pietism  overthrew  a  frigid  orthodoxy,  as  fifty  years  earlier 
Philosophy  overthrew  maudlin  Pietism,  so  now  a  saner  Philoso- 
phy and  a  chastened  Pietism  unite  to  overthrow  an  irreligious 
Rationalism. 

Friedrich  Daniel  Ernst  Schleiermacher  (1768-1834)  was  su- 
perbly trained  in  philosophy,  was  a  master  in  every  theological 
discipline  and  was  as  pious  as  he  was  learned.  Treitschke,  the 
historian  of  Germany  in  the  nineteenth  century,  who  ascribes 
to  Schleiermacher  a  place  second  to  none  in  awakening  the 
patriotism  that  finally  overthrew  Napoleon,  says:  "He  became 
the  renovator  of  our  theology,  the  greatest  of  all  our  theologians 
since  the  Reformation,  and  even  yet  no  German  theologian  ar- 
rives at  inward  liberty  who  has  not  settled  accounts  with 
Schleiermacher 's  ideas."*  But.  also,  he  differed  from  all  his 
predecessors  in.  theology.  Orthodoxy  found  the  seat  of  religion 
in  authority;  Pietism  found  it  in  doing;  Rationalism  found  it 
in  reason.  Schleiermacher  finds  the  place  of  religion  not  in 
authority,  nor  in  the  reason,  but  in  the  feeling,  in  the  sense  of 
absolute  dependence  upon  the  Infinite;  it  is  something  born  in 
man,  and  "Piety,  which  forms  the  basis  of  all  fellowship  in  the 
Church,  considered  per  se,  is  neither  a  knowing  nor  a  doing,  but 
a  determination  of  the  feeling  or  of  the  immediate  self-con- 
sciousness. ' '  t 

Schleiermacher 's  description  of  religion  is  both  beautiful  and 
profound :  ' '  The  contemplation  of  the  pious  is  the  immediate 
consciousness  of  the  universal  existence  of  all  finite  things,  in 
and  through  the  Infinite,  and  of  all  temporal  things  in  and 
through  the  Eternal.  Religion  is  to  seek  this  and  find  it  in  all 
that  lives  and  moves,  in  all  growth  and  change,  in  all  doing  and 
suffering.  It  is  to  have  life  and  to  know  life  in  immediate  feel- 
ing, only  as  such  an  existence  in  the  Infinite  and  Eternal.  Where 
this  is  found,  religion  is  satisfied ;  where  it  hides  itself,  there  is 
unrest  and  anguish,  extremity  and  death.  And  thus  it  is  a  life  in 

*  Oman,  JniroducUon  to  Discourses,  p.  xi. 
■\Dfr   Chrislliclie    Glauhc,   I.,   6. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE   NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  573 

the  infinite  nature  of  the  whole,  in  the  One  and  in  the  All,  in 
God,  having  and  possessing  all  things  in  God,  and  God  in  all. 
Yet  religion  is  not  knowledge  and  science,  either  of  the  world 
or  of  God.  Without  being  knowledge,  it  recognizes  knowledge 
and  science.  In  itself  it  is  an  affection,  a  revelation  of  the  In- 
finite in  the  finite,  God  being  seen  in  it  and  it  in  God. ' '  * 

Schleiermacher  did  not  confess  the  full  Deity  of  Jesus  Christ, 
but  he  recognizes  him  as  the  First-born  Son,  as  the  only  sinless 
Being  that  ever  entered  this  world,  as  the  perfect  Example,  who 
saves  us,  not  by  his  atonement  through  regeneration  and  justifi- 
cation, nor  by  his  example,  but  by  penetrating  us  with  the 
power  of  his  life  and  renewing  us  so  that  we  become  righteous. 
He  handles  the  Scriptures  with  great  freedom,  but  finds  in 
them  all  that  is  necessary  for  the  support  of  the  religious  life 
"divine  essence  and  heavenly  power."  Nevertheless,  both  the 
Discourses  and  the  Christian  Faith  according  to  the  Funda- 
mental Principles  of  the  Evangelical  Church  (1821,  1830),  and 
his  other  publications  composed  in  the  same  spirit,  exerted  an 
immense  influence  on  the  theology  and  on  the  ecclesiastical  con- 
ditions of  the  age.  They  led  men  to  think,  to  approve,  to  oppose. 
His  followers  were  many.  Some  of  these,  acting  also  under  the 
influence  of  Hegel,  obliqued  to  the  left  in  the  direction  of 
Pantheism  and  Atheism.  Others  (Twesten,  Xitzsch,  Neander) 
went  straight  forward  toward  the  Confessions,  and  to  an  evan- 
gelical Christianity  that  confessed  the  Deity  of  Christ  and  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  rule  of  faith. 

2.     Claus  Harms. 
Claus  Harms  (1778-1855)  stands  as  one  of  the  holy  figures  of  "^ 
the  Lutheran  Church.    He  was  born  a  peasant,  but  rose  to  be  a 
prince  in  the  house  of  his  God.  While  a  student  at  the  University 
of  Kiel  he  read  Schleiermacher 's  Discourses  almost  at  a  single    . 
sitting.   When  he  finished  the  book,  he  flung  away  the  Rational- 
ism that  had  shaken  the  faith  of  his  childhood.     Thenceforward 
he  looked  on  Schleiermacher  as  his  spiritual  father,  but  he  added : 
"He  that  begat  me  had  no  bread  for  me."     He  needed  yet  "to 
bury  dead  Rationalism  in  its  grave,"  as  he  says,  and  to  return 
to  the  firm  standing  ground  of  Luther  and  of  the  Lutheran  faith 
before  he  could  satisfy  the  religious  aspirations  of  his  soul.  After 
a  few  years  spent  in  a  country  pastorate,  he  returned  to  Kiel, 
where  his  preaching  excited  uncommon  attention.   The  university 
*  Second  and  Fifth  Discourses. 


574  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

opposed  him  as  "an  obscurantist,  a  darkener  of  the  light  of 
reason,  a  retailer  of  old  worn-out  ideas ;  he  and  his  Bible  and 
Lnther. "  But  he  went  right  on  preaching  the  pure,  simple  Gos- 
pel. Opposition  soon  ceased.  Even  Eckermann,  the  leader  of 
Kiel  Rationalism,  seldom  missed  a  service.  During  the  third 
centennial  of  the  Reformation,  1817,  he  preached  a  sermon  on 
Article  IV.  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  recalled  attention 
to  the  almost  forgotten  material  principle  of  the  Reformation. 
The  same  year  he  republished  Luther's  Ninety-five  Theses,  to- 
gether with  ninety-five  of  his  own.  He  begins  by  throwing  down 
the  following  challenge:  "The  following  theses  which  are  directed 
against  all  kinds  of  errors  and  confessions  within  the  Lutheran 
Church,  the  writer  is  ready  further  to  explain,  to  prove,  defend, 
and  answer  for.  In  case  the  labor  should  become  too  great  for 
him  all  at  once,  he  prays  all  Lutherans  and  those  who  agree  with 
him,  and  are  able  to  speak  or  write,  for  their  fraternal  aid.  If 
he  himself  is  convinced  of  error,  he  will  send  his  acknowledg- 
ment unto  the  world  as  frankly  and  freely  as  he  sends  forth  these 
theses.  For  the  rest,  everything  to  the  honor  of  God,  to  the 
welfare  of  the  Church,  and  in  grateful  memory  of  Luther."  I. 
"When  our  Master  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ  says:  'Repent,'  he 
wills  that  man  shall  be  conformed  to  his  doctrine,  but  he  does  not 
conform  to  men,  as  is  now  done  with  the  altered  spirit  of  the 
times;"  VI.  "Christian  doctrine  and  Christian  life  are  to  be 
built  up  after  the  same  plan;"  VIII.  "Luther's  antichrist  was 
the  Pope ; ' '  IX.  ' '  The  Pope  of  our  time,  our  antichrist,  in  respect 
of  faith  we  may  say,  is  reason ;  in  respect  of  action,  conscience, 
which  has  been  crowned  with  a  triple  crown :  Legislation,  com- 
mendation and  blame,  reward  and  punishment;"  XL  Con- 
science cannot  pardon  sins,  in  other  words,  no  one  can  pardon  his 
own  sins.  Forgiveness  belongs  to  God.  XXI.  ' '  In  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  pardon  of  sins  cost  money  at  least.  In  the  nineteenth 
it  is  entirely  free ;  for  each  one  administers  it  to  himself ; ' '  XXIV. 
"  'Two  states,  0  man,  thou  hast  before  thee,'  we  read  in  the  old 
hymn-book.  In  more  recent  times  the  devil  has  been  slain,  and 
hell  has  been  plugged  up;"  XXVII.  "According  to  the  old 
faith,  God  created  man.  According  to  the  new  faith,  man  cre- 
ates God,  and  when  he  has  finished  him  he  says.  Aha  !"  XXXII. 
"The  so-called  religion  of  reason  is  devoid  of  reason,  or  devoid 
of  religion,  or  devoid  of  both."  XXXIII.  "According  to  it  the 
moon  is  held  to  be  the  sun."  XXXVII.  "He  who  understands 
the  first  letter  of  reliaion,  which  is  'holy.'  let  him  send  for  me." 


I 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE   NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  575 

I..  "AVe  have  a  sure  Bible  word,  unto  which  we  take  heed,  and 
to  guard  aiiainst  the  use  of  force  to  turn  and  twist  this  like  a 
weather-cock  Ave  have  our  Symbolical  Books."  LXXV.  "As  a 
poor  maiden,  the  Lutheran  is  to  be  made  rich  by  being  married. 
Do  not  perform  the  ceremony  over  Luther's  bones.  They  might 
become  alive  at  it,  and  then — woe  to  you.",  LXXVII.  "To  say 
that  time  has  removed  the  wall  of  partition  between  the  Luther- 
ans and  Reformed  is  not  a  straightforward  mode  of  speech.  It  is 
necessary  to  ask  which  fell  away  from  the  faith  of  their  Church, 
the  Lutherans  or  the  Reformed?  or  both?"  XCII.  "The  Evan- 
gelical Catholic  Church  is  a  glorious  Church;  it  holds  and  con- 
forms itself  chiefly  to  the  Sacraments."  XCIII.  "The  Evangeli- 
cal Reformed  Church  is  a  glorious  Church ;  it  holds  and  conforms 
itself  chiefly  to  the  Word."  XCIV.  "More  glorious  than  both  is 
the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church;  it  holds  and  conforms  itself 
both  to  the  Sacraments  and  to  the  "Word  of  God."  XCV.  "Into 
the  Lutheran  Church  both  the  others  are  developing,  even  with- 
out the  intentional  aid  of  men.  But  the  way  of  the  ungodly 
shall  perish,  says  David.    Ps.  1:6."*/ 

These  theses,  so  full  of  homely  wit  and  biting  sarcasm,  are 
directed  about  equally  against  Rationalism  and  against  the  ef- 
forts at  ecclesiastical  union,  which  had  been  already  made  in 
several  parts  of  Germany.  As  might  be  naturally  expected,  they 
aroused  sharp  antagonism  in  the  breasts  of  Rationalists  and  of 
Unionists.  About  two  hundred  pamphlets  were  sent  forth  in 
reply.  Harms  defended  his  theses  in  two  essays.  Sympathy  and 
sentiment  and  judgment  were  soon  on  his  side.  From  this  time 
on,  more  actively  than  before,  superintendents,  professors  of  the- 
ology, and  pastors  of  churches,  turned  away  from  Rationalism 
and  found  repose  in  the  doctrines  of  the  Confessions  and  began 
to  restore  the  substance  of  the  old  liturgies  and  the  old  hymn- 
books  and  to  defend  the  old  doctrine  of  repentance  and  faith. 

•  3.     Ecclesiastical  Union. 
When  the  German  youth,  who  had  mingled  prayers  with  their 
battle  cries,  returned  home  from  the  last  Napoleonic  wars,  with 

*  The  title  of  these  theses  is :  Das  sincl  die  95  Theses  oder  Streitsiitze 
Dr.  Luthers,  teuren  Andenkens.  Zum  besonderen  Druek  besorgt  und  mit 
andern  95  Satzen  als  mit  einer  Uebersetzung  aiis  dem  .Tahre  1517  in  1817 
begleitet  von  Clans  Harms,  Archidiakomis  an  der  St.  Xicolaikirche  in 
Kiel.    Kiel  im  Verlag  der  akademischen  Buchhandlung,  1817. 

These  Theses  in  the  original  are  given  by  Tischhanser,  Gescliichte  der 
Evang.  Kirche  Deutschlands,  Basel,  1900,  pp.  343  et  seqq.  In  English  in  The 
Lutheran  Cyclopedia,  New  York,  1899. 


576  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

victoiy  perched  on  their  banners,  all  Germany  lifted  its  heart  in 
gratitude  to  God  for  freedom.  Not  much  stress  was  laid  on  dif- 
ference of  creed.  At  the  battle  of  Leipzig  (1813)  the  Czar  of 
Russia,  the  Emperor  of  Austria,  and  the  King  of  Prussia  had 
knelt  together  in  prayer  for  triumph  over  the  destroyer  of 
the  peace  of  Europe.  Now  that  the  wars  are  over,  the  Czar  pro- 
posed the  Holy  Alliance  "to  establish  Christianity,  above  all  dif- 
ferences of  creed,  as  the  supreme  law  for  the  life  of  the  na- 
tions.""* 

The  Alliance  was  a  witness  to  the  return  of  a  deeper  and  more 
generous  religious  spirit.  The  Confessions  had  slumbered.  They 
had  been  greatly  ignored.  And  now  it  was  that  Frederick  Wil- 
liam III.,  King  of  Prussia,  sought  to  realize  the  dream  of  his 
Brandenburg  ancestors  that  there  should  be  one  Evangelical 
Church  in  his  dominions.  Accordingly.  ]May  2,  1817,  he  addressed 
a  letter  to  Bishop  Sack  and  Provost  Hanstein,  in  which  he  said, 
he  expected  from  them  propositions  for  the  easiest  and  most  ap- 
propriate manner  of  uniting  the  two  slightly  divergent  confes- 
sions.! A  little  later,  in  the  same  year,  he  declared  in  sub- 
stance that  he  was  convinced  that  both  Protestant  Churches 
were  one  in  essence  and  differed  only  in  externals-,  that  in  their 
union  he  saw  a  work  of  God  by  which  the  Church  would  l)e 
greatly  quickened.  He  defined  the  union  as  one  in  which  the 
Reformed  should  surrender  nothing  to  the  Lutheran,  nor  this 
to  that.  Together  they  should  become  a  revived  Evangelical 
Church  in  the  spirit  of  the  Divine  Master. 

Gradually,  through  changes  and  modifications  of  plans,  by 
Cabinet  orders  and  synodical  resolutions,  the  Prussian  Union 
took  such  form  that  its  legal  status  could  be  thus  described  by 
Stahl:  "According  to  its  general  character  the  Evangelical 
National  Church  of  Prussia  is  a  unitary  organism,  which  already 
in  its  innermost  center  and  through  its  entire  development  con- 
sists of  two  confessions.  The  National  Church  is  not  a  United 
Church.  It  does  not  have  a  common  evangelical  confession  on 
which  it  stands  as  a  National  Church.  But  it  stands  through  and 
through  on  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed  confessions,  which  differ 
from  each  other.  It  does  not  have  common  evangelical  organs  and 
elements,  but  its  organs,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  and  its 
elements  are  Lutheran  or  Reformed :  The  members  of  the  high- 
est Consistory,  of  the  Provincial  Consistory,  the  preachers,  the 

*  Hagenbach  ut  supra,  11.,  34.3.    Hase,  §  491. 
t  Tischhaiiser,  nt  supra,  p.  493. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  577 

congregations.  It  is  through  and  through  a  dualism  of  two,  not 
of  united,  confessions.  The  Evangelical  National  Church  is  not 
united.  It  has  merely  elements  of  union.  As  a  National  Church 
it  has  only  the  one  element  of  union :  The  common,  but  yet  not 
un distinguishable,  Church  government.  But  their  respective  con- 
gregations, and  probably  by  far  the  larger  part  of  them,  have  also 
the  element  of  union  in  that  they  do  not  refuse  external  Church 
fellowship  to  those  of  the  other  confession.  Accordingly,  the 
National  Church  is  not  a  Union  Church,  but  it  is  a  Lutheran 
and  Reformed  Church  for  those  of  the  two  confessions  which 
it  contains.    .    .    . 

"Considered  in  its  individual  relations,  the  National  Church 
has  no  confessional  felloivship,  but  the  assurance  was  unquali- 
fiedly given  that  such  does  not  exist,  yea,  even  that  it  is  not 
effected  by  entrance  into  the  union.  However,  there  are  some 
regulations  which  conflict  with  this  fundamental  principle  and 
with  this  assurance :  The  pledging  of  the  ministers  to  the  Evan- 
gelical confessions,  the  regulation  about  the  ordering  of  the 
congregation  so  that  each  congregation  stands  on  the  founda- 
tion of  the  confessions  of  the  Reformation,  the  older  regulations 
about  fellowship  of  the  teachers,  which  have  not  been  expressly 
rescinded. ' '  * 

In  1822  the  candidates  for  the  ministry  pledged  themselves 
to  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  to  the  three 
ecumenical  creeds,  and  to  "the  Symbolical  Books  as  known  and 
universally  received  in  the  Evangelical  Church. ' '  f  This  for- 
mula of  subscription  underwent  modification  until,  finally,  the 
candidate  pledged  himself  "to  preach  no  other  doctrine  than 
that  which  is  founded  on  the  pure,  clear  Word  of  God  as  con- 
tained in  the  Holy  Scripture  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
our  only  rule  of  faith,  and  attested  in  the  three  Christian  chief 
symbols,  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  the  Athanasian,  and  the  con- 
fessional writings  of  our  Church"  (which  are  here  named).! 
The  Prussian  National  Church  may  be  regarded  as  a  con- 
federated union  of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Churches. 
Each  Church  has  modified  the  other,  though  in  spirit  and  in  teach- 
ing the  union  is  prevailingly  Lutheran  as  over  against  the  char- 
acteristic features  of  the  Reformed  Church.  The  order  of  wor- 
ship, as  set  forth  in  the  Agende,  has  been  always  essentially 

*  Die  Lutherisclie  Kirche  und  Union,  pp.  490,  491. 

t  Kollner,  I.,  p.  122 ;  Seeberg,  Bie  Kirche  Deutschlands  im  neumehnten 
Jahrhundert,  pp.  71  et  seqq. 
t  Agende. 


578  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

Lutheran,  though  it  presents  both  the  Reformed  and  the  Luth- 
eran formulas  of  distribution  for  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  "to  be  used  according  to  the  local  order  of  wor- 
ship." ]\Iany  ardent  confessional  Lutherans  have  been  ardent 
defenders  of  the  Prussian  Union  and  have  lived  and  labored 
in  the  Prussian  National  Church  without  having  the  feeling 
of  restraint  on  their  consciences;  and. only  recently  (1907)  the 
General  Evangelical  Lutheran  Conference,  which  stands  on  the 
Lutheran  Confession,  has  recognized  the  Lutheranism  of  those 
members  of  the  Prussian  Union  who  adhere  to  the  Lutheran  Con- 
fessions; and  at  the  twelfth  convention  of  the  said  Conference, 
held  in  Hanover,  September  14  to  17,  1908,  the  delegates  of  the 
Lutherans  in  the  Prussian  Union  were  formally  received  into 
the  Conference  as  members. 

4.     Confcssionalists  and  Anti-Conf essionalists. 

Harms'  Theses,  the  controversy  that  ensued,  and  the  consum- 
mation of  the  Union  in  the  Prussian  Provinces,  drew  the  atten- 
tion of  Lutherans  to  the  Confessions  and  to  the  study  of  the 
same.  The  result  of  such  study  was  opposition  to  the  Union 
movements,  devotion  to  the  Confessions  and  the  construction  of 
a  systematic  theology,  determined  more  or  less  by,  but  not 
brought  under  servility  to,  the  Confessions. 

Foremost  among  the  opponents  of  the  Union  was  Rudelbaeh, 
pastor  and  superintendent  at  Glauchau,  who  in  1839  published 
his  Reformation,  Lutherthum  nnd  Union,  as  a  historico-dog- 
matic  apology  for  the  Lutheran  Church  and  its  doctrines;  and 
in  1841  his  Introduction  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  By  his 
side,  in  principle,  stood  Guericke,  professor  at  Halle,  who  in 
1839  published  a  work  on  symbolics.  At  Breslau,  in  1841,  a 
Lutheran  Sjniod  was  organized  with  special  reference  to  the 
maintenance  of  the  old  Lutheran  doctrines  as  contained  in  the 
Confessions.  Interest  in  the  Confessions  during  the  same  period 
was  promoted  by  the  publication  of  numerous  editions  of  the 
Symbolical  Books  (Schopff,  1826.;  Hase,  1827;  Meyer,  1830; 
Francke,  1846;  Detzer,  1846:  Miiller,  1847,  and  others),  some 
with  and  some  without  observations  and  introductions ;  and  also 
by  the  lectures  of  Marheineke  in  Comparative  Si/mholics  in  the 
University  of  Berlin,  and  by  the  publication  of  Kollner's  Sym- 
bolics in  1837.  During  the  same  decades  appeared  many  pam- 
phlets which  discussed,  in  one  way  and  in  another,  the  question 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    MXETEKNTH    CEXTUKY.  579 

of  the  authority  and  value  to  the  Church  of  the  Symbolical 
Books.*  Superintendents,  professors  and  learned  pastors  took 
part  in  the  discussions.  ]Many  argued  that  more  significance 
should  be  attached  to  the  Confessions  at  ordination  than  for  a 
long  time  had  been  done.  Some,  however,  took  an  opposite  view. 
For  a  time  the  controversy  Avas  conducted  with  great  vigor  on 
both  sides  between  Hengstenberg  (after  1824,  at  Berlin)  and 
Bretschneider,  General  Superintendent  at  Gotha.  The  former 
employed  the  Evangelische  Kirchenzeitung,  and  the  latter  the 
Allgemeine  EirchenzeiUing,  as  his  medium  of  communication. 
The  former  contended  for  the  abiding  obligatoriness  of  the 
Confession.  The  latter  argued  against  such  obligatoriness. 
Each  represented  a  class,  the  Symbolists  and  the  Anti-Symbol- 
ists, as  they  were  then  called.  The  controversy  between  the  two 
parties  gathered  round  the  following  affirmations  and  negations : 

"The  Symbolists  affirm  that  the  Symbolical  Books  are  norm- 
ated  by  the  Holy  Scripture,  are  clearer  statements,  sharper  de- 
finitions of  the  doctrine  of  Scripture  (in  so  far  then  norma 
normata). 

"The  Anti- Symbolists  affirm  that  this  is  not  the  case. 

' '  The  Symbolists  mean  that  the  ministers'  shall  be  pledged  to 
the  Symbolical  Books  as  norm  of  faith  and  norm  of  doctrine, 
because  the  Symbolical  Books  contain  the  doctrine  of  the  Scrip- 
ture. 

"The  Anti-Symbolists  mean  that  the  ministers  shall  not  be 
pledged  to  the  Symbolical  Books  as  norm  of  faith  and  doctrine, 
because  and  inasmuch  as  the  Symbolical  Books  go  beyond  the 
doctrine  of  the  Scripture  and  in  many  points  pass  it  by,  and 
because  each  one,  in  a  pledge  to  the  Symbolical  Books,  natur- 
ally fixes  his  eye  on  the  sentences  and  definitions  in  which  is 
found  a  deviation  from  the  simple  doctrine  of  the  Scripture."  f 

This  may  be  regarded  as  a  clear  and  impartial  statement  of 
the  points  at  issue  on  the  Symbolical  question  as  discussed  in 
the  many  and  learned  treatises  before  us.  It  does  not  appear 
that  anyone  wished  to  abolish  the  Symbolical  Books  entirely,  for 
even  a  Paulus  of  Jena  had  subscribed  the  Symbolical  Books, 
and  they  still  had  legal  standing  in  the  various  national  churches. 
Rather  was  the  question,  What  is  the  meaning  of  subscription 

•  The  Library  of  the  Lutheran  Theological  Seminary,  at  Gettysburg,  Pa., 
possesses  a  valuable  collection  of  these  pamphlets. 

t  Syniboliker  und  Antisymholiler.  Woriiber  ist  der  Streit?  Klar  und 
deutsch  heantworiet  von  Eobert  Gerhard,  Pastor  zu  Schwoitsch,  Dioces 
Breslau  I.,  1843,  p.  12. 


580  THE    COXFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY, 

to  the  Symbolical  Books?  The  Symbolists  insisted  that  the  sub- 
scriber bound  himself  to  follow  the  ■  Symbolical  Books  as  the 
norm  of  his  teaching.  Some  few  theologians  seem  to  have  in- 
sisted on  requiring  obligation  to  the  letter  of  the  Confession. 
But  the  view  presented  in  the  classic  essay  of  Dr.  Ernst  Sar- 
torius,  General  Superintendent  in  the  Province  of  Prussia :  The 
■'  Necessity  and  Obligation  of  the  Confessions  of  the  Church 
(1845),  represents  the  prevalent  sentiment  of  the  Symbolists. 
He  declares  that  the  Bible,  as  the  authentic  Word  of  the  divine 
revelation,  is  the  sole  divine  canon  of  the  faith  and  life  of  men. 
"Tlie  symbol  which  follows  it  as  a  human  witness  and  confes- 
sion of  faith  in  its  divine  truth  is  entirely  subordinate.  .  .  . 
The  Symbol  is  not  intended  to  be,  and  should  not  be,  a  second 
Bible,  nor  an  ecclesiastical  continuation  or  expansion  of  the 
prophetical  Word,  but  it  is  intended  to  be  only  a  reflection  of  its 
light.  It  is  intended  only  to  testify  that  and  how  the  truth 
concretely  contained  and  revealed  historically  in  it,  and  whose 
light  is  to  enlighten  the  dark  souls  of  men,  has  really  entered 
into  their  knowledge  and  their  faith,  and  has  established  the 
Christian  fellowship  among  them.  Hence,  so  subordinate  as  the 
human  confession  is  to  the  Divine  Word,  so  inseparably  neces- 
sary must  it  yet  appear  in  connection  with  the  same.  For  the 
Divine  Revelation  was  given  to  men,  not  fo  remain  hid  from 
them  in  contradiction  to  itself,  but  that  it  may  be  manifest 
to  them,  and  be  to  them  in  common,  truth,  light  and  life,  which 
it  really  has  become,  when  it  is  known  and  believed  by  them, 
and  as  such  witnessed  and  confessed,  and  thereby  unites  them 
as  a  congregation  of  believers,  or  as  a  Church,  which  is  the 
spiritual  body  of  Christ. ' '  * 

Sartorius  insists  that  the  Symbols  are  not  ecclesiastical  laws 
for  teaching,  or  prescriptions  for  faith,  but  confessions  and  wit- 
nesses of  the  recognized  Christian  truth,  and  that  the  ministers 
are  not  legislators  of  doctrine  in  any  sense,  nor  masters  of  the 
faith  of  the  Church,  but  only  confessors  and  witnesses  of  the 
Divine  Word  in  fellowship  with  the  congregation.!  In  this 
principle  Sartorius  is  sustained  by  ^milius  Ludwig  Richter, 
professor  of  law  in  the  University  of  Marburg,  who  in  Das 
Kirchenregiment  und  die  Symbole  (1839),  p.  43,  declares: 
"Rightly  does  the  ecclesiastical  government  require  of  every 
minister  that  he  refrain  from  all  polemic  which  conflicts  with 
the  received  doctrinal  system.  But  not  only  is  a  negative  rela- 
*  P.  5.  t  Pp.  12,  13. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  581 

tion  to  doctrine  expected  of  him.  This  requirement  must  be 
held  to  mean  that  his  work  in  teaching  joins  itself  primarily  to 
the  confessions  of  the  Church  which  has  called  him  to  the  office 
of  teaching.  But  it  is  not  understood  that  it  is  a  pledge  to 
preach  according  to  the  letter  of  the  Symbols,  and  this  is  self- 
evident,  for  the  Church  cannot  wish  to  bind  the  free  spirit  with 
chains,  thereby  to  set  itself  in  contradiction  to  its  own  prin- 
ciple." 

And  in  his  Kirchenrecht  (2d  edition,  1844,  p.  439)  Richter 
says:  "In  fact,  the  pledge  rests,  not  according  to  one's  own 
subjective  views,  but  already  in  assuming  the  office,  only  in  the 
fundamental  principle  of  the  Confessions  to  preach  the  Gospel. 
But  there  are  also  good  reasons  for  a  special  pledge,  for  inas- 
much as  the  Church  has  committed  to  the  ministers  the  care 
of  the  faith  of  the  congregations,  it  must  seek  by  an  express 
admonition  of  the  consciences  of  the  ministers  to  have  a  guar- 
antee that  the  care  shall  be  used  only  on  the  principle  on  which 
the  Church  itself  has  been  founded.  In  this  there  is  no  en- 
croachment on  the  freedom  of  conscience  or  on  the  freedom  of 
teaching,  because  the  Church  compels  no  one  to  teach  contrary 
to  his  conscience,  and  because  freedom  without  limitations  is  not 
freedom,  but  arbitrariness."  This  is  quoted  with  approbation 
by  Dr.  Adolph  Harless,  of  Leipzig,  who  has  been  called  the  father 
of  the  confessional  tendency.  He  declares  that  a  worse  mis- 
take in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  pledge  cannot  be  conceived 
than  to  represent  it  as- "involving  the  obligation  to  subscribe 
and  recognize  as  scriptural  everything  that  is  contained  in  the 
Symbolical  Books. ' '  He  says  further :  ' '  The  Church  requires 
unanimity  of  her  servants  in  confession.  But  confession  is  not 
something  which  does  not  belong  to  the  Confession.  Confession 
is  not  the  explanation,  the  discussion,  the  demonstration  of  the 
Confession.  Confession  is  the  Articles  of  Faith  which  our 
Cliurch  designates  either  as  those  Avhich  she  holds  in  common 
with  other  Confessions,  or  as  those  bj-  which  she  distinguishes 
herself  from  other  Confessions. "  * 

These  views  touching  the  authority  and  obligation  of  the  Con- 
fessions represent  about  the  average  position  of  the  Symbolists. 
Certainly,  they  do  not  stand  for  an  unqualified  and  uncondi- 
tional subscription  to  the  Confessions,  but  rather  to  the  faith 
Avhich  is  found  in  the  Confessions:  to  "th*e  substance  of  doc- 
trine," as  some  of  the  Symbolists  said.  This  is  the  view  of  an 
*  Votuyn  iiher  die  eidliche  Verpflichtung,  1845,  p.  24. 


582  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

able  defender  of  the  Confessions,  who  wrote  at  the  very  time 
that  the  controversy  over  the  Confessions  and  over  confessional 
subscription  was  in  process.  Under  the  heading:  TJie  Practice 
of  the  Churches  in  More  Recent  Times  in  Regard  to  Subscrip- 
tion to  the  Symbols,  KoUner  writes:  "The  theologians  of  more 
recent  times  almost  universally  have  departed  from  the  rigid 
doctrine  of  the  Symbols,  and  indeed,  as  it  is  proper  to  remark, 
not  only  those  who,  in  the  antagonism  of  parties,  are  called 
Rationalists,  hut  also  those  who  oppose  them  and  wish  to  be 
regarded  as  champions  of  the  Church's  doctrine. 

"On  this  subject  one  should  see  the  highly  interesting  ob- 
servations and  the  collection  of  particular  deliverances  in  Jo- 
hannsen,  p.  577  et  seqq.  Not  only  have  those  who,  alas!  have 
been  sufficiently  decried  as  heterodox,  abandoned  the  faith  of 
the  Symbols,  but  even  the  so-called  orthodox,  as  Doderlein, 
Morus,  Michaelis,  the  venerable  Reinhard,  Knapp,  Storr,  Schott, 
Schwartz,  Augusti,  Marheineke,  also  Halm,  Olshausen,  Tho- 
luck  and  Hengstenberg. 

"So,  also,  the  public  subscription  to  the  Symbols  has  been 
very  much  modified,  and  nowhere  is  it  unconditioned,  but  al- 
ways, true  to  the  Protestant  Principle  and  guarding  this,  it  is 
made  with  the  expressed  proviso  that  the  highest  authority  be- 
longs to  the  Scripture,  as  a  glance  at  the  formulae  of  subscrip- 
tion in  the  different  countries  shows. ' '  * 

And  now  we  turn  to  Johannsen,  as  advised  to  do  by  Kollner. 
We  find  that  every  one  of  the  theologians  named  above  has,  in 
one  point  or  in  another,  departed  from  the  teaching  of  the  Con- 
fessions, though  there  are  ' '  the  dogmatic  rigorists, ' '  as  Guericke. 
Rudelbach,  Harms,  Grundtvig,  who  stand  for  a  closer  adherence 
to  the  Confessions;  but  of  the  writers  on  systematic  theology 
in  this  period  (1817-1848)  it  may  be  said  that  they  show  a 
decided  tendency,  but  it  can  be  scarcely  said  that  any  of  them 
have  reached  a  fixed  confessional  goal.  They  are  almost  all  more 
or  less  under  the  influence  of  Schleiermacher  or  Hegel  (Mar- 
heineke).! 

Over  against  the  Symbolists  stood  the  Anti-Symbolists,  who 
contended  for  greater  freedom  in  regard  to  confessional  sub- 
scription.     Here   Bretschneider  was  the   chief  writer,   who,   as 

*  Symholik  der  Lutlierisclien  Kirche,  p.  121.  In  proof  of  his  declaration 
Kollner  quotes  numerous  subscription  formulae  in  use  in  his  day. 

t  See  Tischhauser,  Geschiclite  der  Evang.  Kirche  Deutschlands,  p.  654; 
Frank,  Geschichte  und  Kritil-,  pp.  132  et  seqq,  and  p.  166;  Seeberg,  Die 
Kirche  Deutscldands  im  neunzchnten  Jahrhundert,  p.  69. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEKNTH    CENTURY.  583 

did  other  Anti-Symbolists  generally,  denounced  the  position  of 
the  opposite  .  party  as  symhol-coercion  (Symbolzwang).  He 
speaks  of  "our  Symbols,"  and  of  "the  Symbols  of  our  Church." 
He  even  declares  that  "the  Church  must  have  a  bond  of  union, 
and  that  this  is  the  faith  expressed  in  her  Confessions.  It  is 
conceded  that  a  Church  nuist  have  something  in  common,  and 
that  includes  the  faith,  the  cultus  and  the  form  of  government. 
But  the  foundation  of  the  faith  must  be  something  simple,  gen- 
eral and  fixed,  not  such  a  collection  of  finely-spun  dogmas  as 
our  Church  Symbols  contain,  which  separate  rather  than  unite, 
and  start  too  many  doubts. "  *  He  insists  that  the  Symbols 
are  too  elaborate,  and  that  they  contain  too  many  contradictions, 
to  serve  as  a  bond  of  union.  However,  the  weight  of  sentiment 
inclined  strongly  toward  the  Symbolists. 

5.       The  New  Lutheranism. 

The  phrase,  New  Lutheranism,  does  not  have  reference,  as 
the  words  might  suggest,  to  the  introduction  of  modern  theo- 
logical conceptions  into  Lutheranism,  but  to  the  introduction  of 
conceptions  and  methods  which  the  Lutheranism  of  the  Refor- 
mation had  abandoned  and  condemned.  It  took  for  its  watch- 
word: Back  to  the  past.  But  its  "past"  was,  in  regard  to 
many  things,  the  pre-Reformation  era.  It  maintained  that  the 
Reformation  had  reformed  too  much,  and  had  abandoned  not  a 
few  valuable  institutions  which  had  grown  up  in  the  Church 
during  the  mediaeval  and  earlier  centuries.  For  instance,  it 
had  laid  too  much  stress  on  the  Church  Invisible,  and  not  enough 
on  the  Church  Visible;  it  had  forged  too  deep  a  cleft  between 
the  Church  and  the  State;  it  had  given  the  Word  precedence 
over  the  sacraments  as  means  of  grace;  it  had  departed  from 
the  doctrine  of  transmission  in  the  office  of  the  ministry ;  it  had 
laid  too  little  stress  on  confession  and  absolution. f 

In  the  fourth  and  fifth  decades  of  the  century  it  was  greatly 
influenced  by  the  literary  and  Roman  Catholic  Romanticism  of 
the  preceding  decades.  It  might  not  be  improper  to  call  it  the 
Romanticising  of  Lutheranism.  It  has  been  called  German 
Puseyism.  But  it  was  the  Revolution  of  1848  that  gave  it  its 
significance  and  its  influence   for  nearly  a  generation.     After 

*  Unzuldssigleit  des  Symbolzirangs,  pp.  23-2.5;  Ant  wort  auf  das  Libell,  p. 
28. 

t  See  Kliefoth,  Acht  Bucher  von  der  Kirche,  1854,  passim.  Lohe^  Aphoris- 
men;  Liturgic,  2d  edition,  Preface.  Frank,  Geschichte  und  Kritik  der 
Neueren  Theologie,  pp.  214  et  seqq. 


584  THE    CONFESSIONS   IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

that  great  social  and  political  upheaval  the  Romanticists  in 
religion  coneeived  it  to  be  one  of  their  missions  to  defend  the 
throne  against  all  democratic  ideas  and  aspirations;  and  though 
they  never  formed  a  compact  party,  they  may  be  described  as 
a  politico-ecclesiastical  alliance,  with  decidedly  Romanizing  ten- 
dencies. As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  were  led  chiefly  by  Dr. 
Frederick  Julius  Stahl,  from  1840  professor  of  ecclesiastical  and 
civil  law  in  the  University  of  Berlin,  whose  views  in  regard  to 
the  Church  and  the  ministry  were  both  legalistic  and  Romaniz- 
ing. He  held  that  the  Church  is  "God's  institution  over  men," 
and  that  synods  are  not  to  govern  the  Church,  but  "to  give  di- 
dactico-official  expression  to  the  Church  government  (Kirchen- 
regmient)." 

Not  a  few  statesmen,  jurists  and  theologians,  who  had  been 
frightened  by  the  Revolution,  and  had  conceived  hostility  for 
the  philosophical  speculations  which  had  been  introduced  into 
theology,  and  for  certain  religious  phenomena,  had  come  to 
think  alike  in  various  parts  of  Germany,  and  to  act  in  concert 
for  the  restoration  of  ' '  the  venerable  institutions  of  the  Chunch, ' ' 
though  they  were  by  no  means  agreed  in  all  points  of  doctrine. 
They  were,  however,  agreed  in  their  opposition  to  Pietism. 
Kliefoth  called  Spener  an  exotic  in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and 
declared  that  he  had  weakened  and  torn  it  by  his  subjectivism. 
In  general  it  may  be  said  that  the  New  Lutherans  sought  to 
restore  the  Confessions  to  somewhat  of  that  rigid  obligatory 
authority  which  they  had  in  the  seventeenth  century;  that  they 
laid  special  stress  on  pure  doctrine ;  that  they  minimized,  and  in 
some  instances,  sought  to  obliterate  the  distinction  between  fun- 
damental and  non-fundamental  doctrines;  that  they  exalted  the 
ministry  in  its  official  administration  of  the  means  of  grace ;  that 
they  (some,  at  least)  claimed  that  pastors  are  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,  and  that  the  sacraments,  officially  administered, 
form  the  central  point  of  Lutheranism;  that  they  held  that  the 
sacraments,  as  means  of  grace,  have  a  higher  significance  than 
the  Word;  that  they  regarded  the  Church  as  a  divine  institu- 
tion, rather  than  as  a  congregation  of  true  believers.* 

In  the  department  of  systematic  theology,  representatives  of 
this  Romanticising  tendency  produced  some  noted  works.  We 
may  name  a  few :     Dr.  F.  A.  Philippi,  of  Rostock,  likened  to 

*  See  Corner,  History  of  I'rot.  Theology,  II.,  403  et  seqq;  Lichtenberger, 
Uist.  German  Prot.  Theol.  in  19th  Century,  pp.  421  ct  seqq;  Kurtz,  Church 
History,  III.,  §  175,  I.;  Seeberg,  Die  Kirche  Deutschlands,  pp.  138  et  seqq. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTIRY.  585 

Johu  Gerhard  and  Qiienstedt,- published    (1854-79)   Jiirc/f/ic/te  ^ 
Glauhenslehre,  very  much  in  the  spirit  of  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sions and  after  the  manner  of  the  Dogmaticians  of  the  seven- 
teenth centur3^    Thomasius  issued  his  Christi  Person  unci  Werk 
(1853-1855),  as  a  statement  of  the  Lutheran  Dogmatic,  though  in 
numerous  points  he  departs  from  the  doctrinal  concepts  of  the 
Lutheran  Confessions.    Kalinis  published  Die  Lutherische  Dog-    ^ 
matik  historisch-genetisch  dargestellt  (1861-64).    On  the  formal 
principle  of  the  Reformation,  on  the  person  of  Christ,  on  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  he  deviates  appreciably  from 
the  teaching  of  the  Confessions  on  those  subjects.     Von  Hof-     "^ 
mann,  of  Erlaugen,  is  the  author  of  Schriftheiveis   (1852-53), 
a  semi-dogmatic,  in  which  the  author  seeks  to  demonstrate  the 
agreement  of  his  theology  with  the  Lutheran  Confessions:  but 
he  called  down  on  himself  the  wrath  of  the  entire  theological 
Faculty  of  Rostock  in  regard  to  his  teaching  on  the  atonement, 
•  though  he  was  supported  by  his  colleagues  of  the  Erlaugen  Theo-      ^ 
logical  Faculty.    And  to  these  might  be  added  Heinrich  Schmid's 
''Die  Dogmatik  der  evangelisch-lutherischen  Kirche,  dargestellt 
und  aus  den  Quelleii  delegt." 

Schmid's  work  has  been  thus  described  by  Seeberg:  ''Valu- 
able as  this  book  is  in  itself,  yet  the  title  is  strange  and  mislead- 
ing in  view  of  the  contents.  'The  Dogmatic'  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  is  thus  the  Dogmatic  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
the  'sources'  'of  the  Dogmatic'  are  the  works  of  Gerhard,  Cal- 
ovius  and  Quenstedt !  The  especial  confusion  of  the  Conceptions 
in  regard  to  the  'old  Dogmatic'  is  aptly  expressed  by  this  title. 
And,  fuially,  justification  for  this  idea — which  still  exists  here 
and  there — rests  only  on  the  authority  of  the  Rationalistic  theo- 
logians. They  presented,  as  already  Semler  did,  a  comprehen- 
sive statement  of  the  forms  of  the  seventeenth  century.  They 
also  added  critical  observations.  This  last  was  omitted  by 
Sclimid,  who  gave  no  reasons  for  his  confidence  in  the  science 
of  .  the  seventeenth  century.  But  such  a  procedure  must,  of 
course,  fortify  one  in  the  mistake  that  the  seventeenth  century 
was  the  classic  period  for  the  construction  of  the  Lutheran  doc- 
trines. ' '  * 

To  this  group  of  distinguished  Lutheran  theologians,  who  rep- 
resent the  New  Lutheranism,  might  be  added  others,  equally  dis- 
tinguished, as  Delitzsch  and  Luthardt,  of  Leipzig,  Frank,   of    - 
Erlaugen,  and  Zockler,  of  Greifswald,  all  of  whom  were  more 
*  Ut  supra,  p.   140. 


586  THE    COXFESSIOXS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

or  less  influenced  by  the  New  Lutheranism,  and  who,  together 
with  their  contemporaries  named  above,  were  known  in  the 
second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  as  confessionalists. 

Now  it  will  be  instructive  to  learn  just  what  the  most  dis- 
tinguished representatives  of  this  group  have  written  on  the 
subject  of  confessional  subscription.  We  will  begin  with  Phil- 
ippi.  In  his  Lectures  on  Symbolics,  published  in  1883  by  his 
son.  Dr.  Ferdinand  Philippi,  Professor  Philipfji  says:  "When 
it  is  said  that  only  actual  material  agreement  with  the  doctrine 
of  a  particular  Church,  as  the  same  is  set  forth  in  its  confes- 
sional writings,  can  be  demanded  of  a  preacher  of  that  Church, 
it  is  already  imderstood  that,  least  of  all,  is  such  an  agreement 
with  the  letter  of  the  Symbols  to  be  demanded  that  also  every- 
thing that  belongs  not  immediately  to  the  doctrine  itself,  but 
only  to  its  exegetical,  historical  or  dogmatic  grounding,  proof 
and  determination,  must  be  acknowledged  as  irrefutably  correct. 
For  instance,  not  eveiy  citation  of  Holy  Scripture  which  is- 
found  in  our  Symbolical  Books  always  proves  that  which  it  is 
designed  to  prove.  But  it  is  sufficient  if  the  doctrine  which  is 
intended  to  be  proved  by  it  is  in  general  only  in  the  Scripture, 
and  has  been  proved  or  can  be  proved  by  other  citations."* 
"Moreover,  that  even  of  teachers  only  an  honest  and  hearty 
agreement  in  all  the  fundamental  articles  of  the  evangelical 
doctrine  should  be  demanded  we  have  already  remarked.  Even 
these  (teachers),  in  a  time  like  our  own,  when  progress  is  mak- 
ing, may  be  treated  Avith  hope  by  the  Church  authorities  if 
they  express  doubt  about  the  less  essential  parts  of  the  Church's 
Confession.  These  (the  Church  authorities)  may  decide  in  spe- 
cial cases  to  what  extent  a  person  offering  himself  for  the  min- 
istry is  actually  in  harmony  with  the  essential  ground  of  the 
Evangelical  Confession.  To  decide  this  is  the  business  of  intel- 
ligent Church  authorities.  Under  such  conditions  the  very 
promising  and  well  qualified,  in  regard  to  wiiom,  according  "to 
human  judgment  and  foresight,  there  is  hope  for  further  prog- 
ress, will  not  be  deterred  from  the  ministry. ' '  f 

Kahnis,  in  his  Christentnm  unci  Lutherthum  (1671),  which 
was  written  in  opposition  to  the  Prussian  Union,  says:  "When 
Lutherans  lay  stress  on  their  Confession,  that  is  not  peculiar  to 
them.  All  other  Churches  are  called  confessions,  because  they 
have  confessions.  The  peculiarity  of  the  Lutheran  Church  lies 
not  in  the  fact  that  it  has  a  confession,  but  in  the  Confession 

^  P.  320.  t  P.  324. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  587 

ivhicli  it  has.  What  is  that  Confession  J  It  is  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. Lutheran  is  that  congregation,  that  National  Church, 
which  Ivnows  itself  to  be  attached  to  the  Augsburg  Confession 
as  the  confession  which  normalizes  its  doctrine.  The  other  con- 
fessions of  the  Book  of  Concord  were  never  universally  accepted 
in  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  consequently  have  only  the  char- 
acter of  confessions  of  secondary  rank.  The  original  and  legal 
designation  of  the  Lutheran  Church  is,  'Congregations  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.'  Where  a  congregation  ceases  to  confess 
itself  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  it  loses  its  Lutheran  char- 
acter. Acknowledgment  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  the 
fundamental  confession  is  the  first  mark  of  Lutheranism.  This 
acknowledgment  is,  of  course,  determined  by  the  principle  of 
Scripture.  Thus  a  Lutheran,  who,  wholly  mistaking  the  human 
character  of  this  Confession,  would  exempt  it  from  all  testing, 
and  would  declare  it  to  be  absolute  truth,  would  ascribe  to  this 
Confession  a  dignity  which,  on  the  principle  of  Protestantism, 
it  cannot  have  and  does  not  even  mean  to  have.  To  acknowledge 
a  confession  can  mean  only  this :  To  be  convinced  of  the  essen- 
tial agreement  of  the  same  with  the  Scripture.  But  a  congrega- 
tion acknowledges  a  confession  then  only,  when  it  sees  in  the 
same  the  norm  of  public  teaching.  The  Reformed  churches  have 
no  universally  authoritative  confession,  but  only  territorial  sym- 
bols, which,  of  course,  cannot  have  for  the  Reformed  Church  as 
a  whole  the  authority  which  the  Lutheran  Church  ascribes  to 
her  universally  recognized  chief  Symbol.  The  Union  labors  un- 
der the  contradiction  of  giving  equal  authority  to  different  con- 
fessions. ' '  * 

On  the  special  subject  of  confessional  subscription.  Professor 
Kahnis  expressed  himself  as  follows:  "When  a  Lutheran  min- 
ister subscribes  the  Confession  he  deceives  himself  and  others 
if  he  thinks  that  the  Protestant  fundamental  principle  of  the 
unconditional  authority  of  the  Scriptures  takes  away  all  bind- 
ing authority  from  such  subscription.  The  Protest  So  Far  As 
(Quatenus,  so  far  as  the  Confession  is  in  harmony  with  the 
Scriptures)  is  right  only  when  it  stands  on  Because  (Quia),  be- 
cause the  essential  agreement  of  the  Confession  with  the  Scrip- 
tures is  assured.  But  we  purposely  say :  The  essential.  For  in- 
stance, he  who  in  principle  holds  the  Scriptures  as  the  sole  in- 
fallible canon  of  truth,  cannot  possibly  declare  the  Confession 
to  be  infallibly  true,  because  he  would  then  place  the  Confession 

*Pp.  73,  74. 


588  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.- 

on  equal  footing  with  the  Scriptures.  But  the  word  essential 
is  in  need  of  a  more  exact  definition.  The  truth  of  the  Confes- 
snon  does  not  stand  primarily  on  the  truth  of  each  individual 
proposition.  Of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  chief  Confession, 
we  do  not,  indeed,  have  either  the  German  or  the  Latin  orig- 
inal. As  Melanchthon  improved  the  original  up  to  the  last  mo- 
ment, so  he  subsequently  also  changed  much,  and  this  must  be 
really  regarded  as  an  improvement,  although  only  the  unaltered 
original  form  has  validity.  But  that  rigid  adherence  to  every 
statement  can  lead  straight  to  error  is  shown,  for  example,  In' 
the  well-known  statement  in  the  Apology  (Art.  XIII.)  which 
teaches  that  there  are  three  sacraments:  Baptism,  the  Lord's 
Supper  and  Absolution.  Moreover,  it  is  self-evident  that  he 
who  accepts  the  Confession  acknowledges  its  content  of  faith, 
not  the  theological  form,  which  bears  the  characteristic  of  every 
theology:  It  is  human,  liable  to  be  mistaken,  influenced  by  the 
times.  We  interpret  very  differently,  we  look  at  history  differ- 
ently and  require  a  different  dogmatic  definition,  development 
and  confirmation  of  the  doctrines  of  faith  from  what  the  Re- 
formers did. ' '  * 

We  pass  to  Zockler,  who  in  the  third  edition  of  his  Handhuch 
der  theologischen  Wissenschaften  writes  as  follows:  "We  de- 
mand a  theology  that  is  governed  by  the  Confession,  or,  more 
briefly,  that  is  faithful  to  the  Symbol.  It  is  self-evident  that 
the  standpoint  here  indicated  does  not  exclude  the  right  of  free 
movement  and  of  a  critical  attitude  toward  the  Symbols  of  the 
Church.  The  theologian  of  our  day  who  is  true  to  the  Con- 
fession need  not  bind  himself  to  the  exegetical  and  historical 
proofs,  which  were  used  by  the  authors  of  these  writings  ac- 
cording to  the  stage  of  the  sciences  in  their  day.  Neither  are 
all  the  details  of  their  dogmatic  construction  of  obligatory  au- 
thority for  him,  nor  is  he  obliged  to  retain  the  harsh  polemic 
tone,  the  anathemas,  the  'Damnamus'  found  in  the  doctrinal 
writings  of  the  sixteenth  century  against  those  of  another  faith. 
The  Symbols  themselves  make  no  claim  to  such  unconditioned 
binding  authority  of  their  letter.  They  themselves  assign  in- 
spired authority  only  to  the  Scriptures.  Even  the 'most  rigid 
and  most  sharply  defined  of  the  Lutheran  Symbols,  the  For- 
mula of  Concord,  distinguishes  the  Symbolical  Books  as  norma 
normata  from  the  Scripture  as  norma  normans.  This  latter  is 
the  absolute  norm  of  faith,  'the  sole  and  most  certain  rule,  ac- 

*P.    128. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IX    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTLHV.  589 

cording  to  which  all  dogmas  must  be  explained  and  all  doctrines 
and  teachers  must  be  judged.'  This  it  places  high  above  the 
other,  which  is  merely  a  human  norm  of  doctrine.  And  the 
modern  theological  defenders  of  the  good  right  of  the  Symbols 
judge  in  the  same  way.  Even  Dr.  Ferdinand  Philippi,  in  his 
festive  publication  for  the  third  centennial  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord (Die  Notwendigkeit  und  Verbindlichkeit  des  KircJilichen' 
Bekenntnisses,  1880),  declares  as  obligatory  and  normative  in 
the  Confessions,  not  their  external  exegetico-historical  attire  or 
the  details  of  their  passionate  discussions,  but  their  system  of 
doctrine.  And  not  once  does  he  mean  that  this  system  of  doc- 
trine shall  be  considered  as  absolutely  perfect,  incapable  of  im- 
provement. ' '  * 

Dr.  F.  H.  R.  Frank  ranked  as  one  of  the  most  thoughtful  and 
one  of  the  most  thoroughly  sound  Lutheran  theologians  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  His  monument  is  his  Theologie  der  Con- 
cordienformel.  When  offered  the  chair  made  vacant  in  the 
University  of  Berlin  by  the  death  of  Dr.  Dorner,  he  declined 
it,  because  the  Prussian  Church  does  not  accept  the  Lutheran 
Confession  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Reformed.  His  numerous 
works  show  clearly  that,  while  holding  firmly  by  the  Lutheran 
system  of  doctrines,  as  antithetical  to  the  Roman  Catholic  sys- 
tem on  the  one  hand,  and  equally  antithetical  on  the  other  to 
the  Reformed  system,  he  did  not  follow  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sions word  for  word.  The  writer  hereof  stated  the  case  to  Dr. 
Frank  in  a  private  letter  as  it  is  presented  above,  and  inquired : 
"Am  I  correct  in  this  supposition?"  January  9,  1893,  Dr. 
Frank  answered  as  follows:  "My  conception  of  the  sense  of 
subscription  to  the  Symbols  of  the  Lutheran  Church  you  have 
in  general  rightly  apprehended.  We  know  ourselves  at  home 
in  our  Church  not  as  slaves,  who  are  servil6ly  bound  to  the  letter 
of  the  Confessions,  much  less  to  the  theology  of  the  sixteenth 
and  seventeenth  centuries,  but  as  free  and  willing  sons,  who 
know  the  meaning  of  our  fathers,  and  feel  ourselves  inwardly 
at  one  with  them.  Hence  we  know  how  to  distinguish  between 
the  substance  of  the  Confession,  which  is  to  be  ascertained  his- 
torically by  reference  to  the  antitheses,  and  the  many  accidental 
additions  which  unavoidably  attach  themselves  to  it  and  are  not 


"Band  I.,  15,  16.  The  Lutheran  Cyclopedia  describes  Zockler  as  "a 
Lutheran  theologian  of  encyclopaedic  learning,  as  thorough  as  universal  in 
knowledge,  and  truly  conservative."  The  same  authority  describes  Dr. 
Ferdinand  Philippi  as  "  a  strictly  orthodox  Lutheran  theologian. ' ' 


590  THE   CONFESSIONS    IN    THE   NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

obligatory  upon  us.     To  these  belong,  for  instance,  the  explana-  ' 
tions  of  particular  passages  of  Scripture,  as  James  ii.,  the  lug- 
ging in  of  the  Aristotelian  categories  in  the  Article  on  Original 
Sin,  the  false  citations,  and  the  like. ' ' 

Superintendent  Dr.  Koehler,  writing  on  Subscription  to  the 
Scripture  and  to  the  Confession,  says:  "The  pastor,  by  his 
*  office,  is  bound  to  preach  the  Gospel  of  Christ  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  according  to  the  way  in  which 
it  is  understood  by  the  Evangelical  Church,  and  to  build  the 
congregation  on  this  foundation.  As  norm  and  canon  in  all 
his  official  acts  the  Scripture  must  be  in  the  first  rank,  the  Con- 
fession of  the  Church  in  the  second.  A  pledge  directed  to  that 
end  is,  in  some  form,  everywhere  required  of  the  minister  at  his 
entrance  into  office,  either  at  his  ordination  or-  by  a  special  act 
of  obligation.  Yet  it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  obligation  to 
Scripture  and  to  Confession  never  can  have  the  meaning  of 
consent  to  the  verbal  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  or 
to  the  juridical  obligation  to  the  wording  of  the  Symbol. 
Scripture  and  Confession  in  the  Evangelical  Church  can  never 
become  a  law  to  regulate  teaching  in  a  juridical  manner."  * 

These  examples  illustrate  the  position  of  the  most  distin- 
guished Lutheran  theologians  of  the  second  half  of  the  nine- 
teenth century  in  relation  to  the  value  and  authority  of  the 
Confessions.  The  number  of  such  might  be  greatly  increased, 
but  they  could  add  nothing  to  the  clearness  and  distinctness  with 
Avhich  the  German  Lutheran  theologians  of  the  period  under 
review  repudiate  the  proposition  that  subscription  to  the  Luth- 
eran Confessions  involves  obligation  to  hold  and  to  teach  all  the 
details  of  their  expositions.  It  is  enough  to  adhere  to  their 
system  of  doctrine;  to  be  convinced  of  the  essential  agreement 
of  the  Confessions  with  the  Scriptures;  to  require  actual  ma- 
terial agreement  on  doctrine;  to  hold  by  the  substance  of  the 
Confession.  These  are  the  points  on  which  the  confessional 
Lutherans  of  the  second  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  agreed, 
and  it  is  on  such  conceptions  that  almost  all  the  Lutheran  sys- 
tematic theology  of  the  times  is  based.  To  be  convinced  of  this, 
one  has  only  to  consult  the  works  named  near  the  beginning  of 
the  present  section,  to  which  might  be  added  Luthardt's  Kom- 
pencliur)i  der  Dogmatil'  and  his  Glauhenslelire,  and  Frank's 
System  der  Christlichen  Wahrheit. 

*  Lelirhuch  des  Deutsch-Evangelischen  Kirchenrechif^,  1895,  pp.  183-4. 
The  author  Tvas  Superintendent  and  Obereonsistorialrat  in  Darmstadt. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  oOl 

6.     The  Formulae  of  Subscription. 

The  formulae  of  subscription  in  force  in  Germany  during  the 
nineteenth  century,  many  of  which  are  in  force  at  the  present 
time,  are  identical  in  essence  with  the  views  of  the  so-called 
Lutheran  symbolists  and  confessionalists  of  the  century.  .They 
show  that  they  differ  widely  from  some  formulae  used  in  pre- 
vious centuries,  and  are  not  unconditional  and  absolute,  though 
some  of  them  are  more  stringent  than  others.  We  give  a  few 
illustrative  examples. 

The  formula  introduced  into  the  Kingdom  of  Saxony  in  1811 
reads  as  follows:  "You  are  to  promise  and  swear  that  in  re- 
gard to  religion  you  will  steadfastly  abide  by  the  pure  evangel- 
ical doctrine  accepted  in  these  lands  as  the  same  is  contained 
in  the  Holy  Scripture,  is  set  forth  in  the  unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession  and  is  repeated  in  the  other  Symbolical  Books  of 
the  Evangelical  Church,  that  you  will  teach  accordingly  and 
that  against  the  maintenance  of  this  doctrine  you  will  do  noth- 
ing either  secretly  or  openly ;  also  when  you  perceive  that  others 
wish  to  do  this,  that  you  Avill  not  conceal  it,  but  make  it  known 
to  the  superintendents:  and  in  so  far  as  you  shall  feel  yourself 
pressed  by  your  conscience  to  depart  in  your  sermons  from  the 
doctrinal  system  received  in  the  Evangelical  Church  or  to  con- 
fess to  another  confession  not  in  harmony  with  this  Confession, 
Avithout  delay,  by  virtue  of  your  oath,  you  will  announce  the 
same  to  your  superintendents  and  await  further  decision  on  the 
matter."  This  was  adopted  to  take  the  place  of  an  oath  pre- 
scribed in  1601,  which  bound  not  merely  with  reference  to  doc- 
trine, but  rigidly  to  faith  on  the  letter  of  the  Symbolical  Books.* 

In  Saxe-Weimar  the  candidates  promised  (1821)  "to  preach 
the  Word  of  God  purely  as  it  is  contained  in  the  writings  of 
the  Prophets  and  Apostles  and  according  to  the  Confession  of 
the  Evangelical  Protestant  Church,  in  so  far  as  these  agree  with 
the  Word  of  God." 

In  Bavaria  (1821):  "The  Protestant  Evangelical  Church 
holds  in  due  respect  the  Ecumenical  Creeds,  and  the  Symbolical 
Books  in  the  separate  Protestant  Confessions,  yet  it  recognizes  no 
TOther  rule  of  faith  or  norm  of  doctrine  than  alone  the  Holy 
Scriptures. ' ' 

In  Wurtemherg  in  1826 :  "Especially  do  you  promise  hereby, 
in  your  sermons  and  religious  instructions,  to  hold  yourself  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  to  allow  yourself  no  deviations  from  the 
*  KoUner,  I.,  p.  123. 


592  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

evangelical  system  of  doctrine  in  so  far  as  the  same  is  contained 
especially  in  the  Augsburg  Confession." 

In  Austria,  since  1788 :  '  *  I  call  upon  you  to  witness  in  the 
presence  of  God  and  of  this  Christian  congregation  that  you  are 
firmly  resolved  to  assume  the  office  of  evangelical  teacher,  and 
to  administer  the  same  according  to  the  rule  of  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord,  and  to  preach  the  Christian  religion  purely  to  your 
congregation  according  to  the  content  of  the  Holy  Scripture 
and  of  the  Augsburg  Confession." 

In  Electoral  Hesse  an  oath  to  the  Symbolical.  Books  is  not 
required.  The  preacher,  at  his  ordination,  is  instructed  "to 
preach  purely  the  entire  doctrine  of  the  Christian  religion  which 
is  taught  in  the  Prophetical  and  Apostolical  Books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments,  in  the  Apostles',  the  Nicene,  the  Athanas- 
ian,  the  Ephesine  and  Chalcedonic  Creeds,  and  also  is  explained 
in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  its  Apology."      • 

In  Bavaria,  since  1853:  "I,  N.  N.,  promise  that  in  my  ser- 
mons, instructions  and  other  functions,  of  whatever  nature  they 
may  be,  to  hold  myself  carefully  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  as  the  same  is  witnessed  to  in  the  Confessions  of  our 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  and  in  no-  respect  knowingly  to 
depart  from,  to  say  nothing  about  contradicting,  them;  and  I 
will  not  give  offense  by  uncertain  and  doubtful  doctrines  which 
are  not  in  harmony  with  the  Confession  of  my  Church,"  etc. 

In  the  Kingdom  of  Saxony,  1871:  "I  promise  before  God 
that  I  Avill  teach  and  preach  purely,  according  to  best  knowledge 
and  conscience,  the  Gospel  of  Christ  as  the  same  is  contained  in 
the  Holy  Scripture  and  is  witnessed  to  in  the  first  unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession  and  in  the  other  Symbols  of  the  Evangel- 
ical Lutheran  Church." 

These  examples  fairly  represent  the  formulae  of  subscription 
employed  in  the  German  Lutheran  Church  during  the  nineteenth 
century.*     Some  of  the  formulae  confine  subscription  to  the 

*  Those  who  are  in  search  of  further  information  on  this  subject  will 
find  it  in  Johannsen,  ut  supra,  pp.  608  et  seqq.;  KoUner,  ^lt  supra,  I.,  121 
et  seqq.;  Hermann  Mulert,  Die  Lelirverpflichtung,  2nd  ed.  (1906);  Georg 
Lober,  OrdinationsverpflicliUmgen  (1905)  ;  also  in  the  very  scholarly  articles 
of  J.  O.  Evjen,  in  The  Lutheran  Quarterly  for  Jan.,  April,  July,. 
1907,  entitled,  Lutheran  Germany  and  the  Bool-  of  .Concord.  On  p.  352,  Dr. 
Evjen  Tirites  as  follows:  "The  Lutherans  in  Europe  that  do  not  accept  the 
Book  of  Concord  are:  (a)  22,000,000  in  Germany  (over  two-thirds  of  her 
entire  Lutheran  population)  ;  (b)  2,500,000  in  Denmark  (entire  State,  in- 
cluding Iceland)  ;  (c)  2,250,000  in  Norway  (entire  State)  ;  (d)  1,289,000 
in  Hungary  (entire  Lutheran  population)  ;  (e)  372,000  in  Austria  (entire 
Lutheran  population)  ;  (f)  60,000  in  France  (entire  Lutheran  population)  ; 
(g)   83,000  in  Holland;    (h)   400,000  in   (Russian)   Poland." 


I 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  593 

Scriptures  and  to  the  Augsburg  Confession.  Very  few  specifically 
mention  the  Formula  of  Concord.  Some  employ  the  words: 
"According  to  the  content";  in  German,  Nach  clem  Inhalte, 
which  to  a  German  means:  According  to  the  tenor,  siibstance, 
siihstantially.  In  some  cases  the  formula  is  a  promise  to.  preach 
the  doctrine  contained  in  the  Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  or  in  the  Symbolical  Books.  In  the  case  of 
AViirtemberg,  prominence  is  given  to  the  evangelical  system.  In 
no  instance  have  we  found  a  formula  that  is  unconditional.  And 
as  regards  the  confessional  Lutheran  theology  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  it  is  by  no  means  a  reproduction  of  the  Kirchenlehre 
of  the  Book  of  Concord.  It  deals  also  with  current  theological 
problems,  as  witness  Kahnis,  Luthardt  and  Frank.  Seeberg,  in 
his  Die  Kirche  DeutscJdands  im  neunzehnten  Jahrhundert,  1903, 
says  that  in  formulating  the  doctrines  theologically  they  nearly 
all  deviate  from  the  Confession.*  And  Gottfried  Braun,  senior 
and  pastor  in  Eyrichshof,  in  an  essay  which  he  was  "required" 
to  read  before  the  Bavarian  Lutheran  Synod  in  1875,  has  very  ac- 
curately voiced  the  prevailing  Lutheran  sentiment  in  the  second 
half  of  the  nineteenth  century  in  what  he  says  on  the  special 
subject  of  subscription  to  the  Confessions  and  their  over-valua- 
tion: "If,  then,  the  pledging  (Verpflichtung)  of  the  ministers 
to  the  Confessions  results  self-evidently  and  almost  without 
argument  from  our  premises,  so  might  we  here  also  make  a  re- 
striction and  point  to  an  existing  impropriety.  The  ministers 
of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  are  pledged  in  general  to 
the  Symbols.  We  have  shown  above  that  among  them  there  is 
an  important  gradation  in  symbolical  value.  Some  of  them, 
though  they  are  publicly  recognized,  are  nevertheless  private 
writings  and  bear  wholly  the  character  of  such.  Melanchthon, 
for  instance,  to  take  only  one  example  from  many,  in  the  Apol- 
ogy calls  the  authors  of  the  Confutation  asses,  and  the  Pope  the 
chief  of  rogues.  How  strongly  Luther  laid  on  the  Schmalkald 
Articles  the  impress  of  his  robust  individuality  has  been  al- 
ready mentioned.  It  has  occurred  recently  that  a  stupid  slave 
of  the  Symbols  sought  publicly  to  justify  his  irreverent  attacks 
by  means  of  these  harsh  characteristics  of  the  Schmalkald  Ar- 
ticles; and,  likewise,  a  not  less  stupid  enemy  of  the  Symbols 
undertook  to  base  his  cry  for  the  complete  abolition  of  the  Sym- 
bols on  the  accidental  expressions  of  the  Apology.  One  of  the 
Confessions,  the  Formula  of  Concord,  is  scarcely  any  longer  to 

*  P.  2.35. 
38 


5V)4  THE   CONFESSIONS   IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

be  named  a  Confession,  yea,  it  itself  expressly  declares  that  it  is 
not  intended  to  be  a  confession.  Its  content  lies  in  by  far  the 
largest  part  beyond  the  boundary  that  separates  confession  from 
doctrine.  If,  however,  subscription  to  the  Confessions  is  to  be 
made  in  bulk,  then  men  who  have  consciences  gravely  hesitate. 
But  to  those  who  have  no  conscience  subscription  wall  be  a  per- 
fect illusion,  when  it  is  understood  from  the  beginning  that  ex- 
ceptions are  to  be  allowed.  This  is  sought  to  be  met  by  saying 
that  subscription  is  not  to  be  made  to  the  form,  but 
to  the  content,  not  to  the  accident,  but  to  the  substance, 
not  to  the  clothing  of  the  evangelical  truth  emphasized,  not  to 
every  individual  truth,  every  quotation,  every  idea,  every 
conception  of  a  biblical  passage,  not  to  the  non-fundamental, 
but  to  the  fundamental,  to  the  spirit  of  the  Confessions.  In  this 
way  the  fact  is  overlooked  that,  when  it  is  not  said  what  this 
fundamental,  this  spirit  is,  it  is  left  to  the  candidate  to  settle 
this,  and  in  this  way — just  as  with  that  old  quatenus — the  door 
is  opened  to  arbitrariness,  and  subscription  becomes  obscure, 
and,  therefore,  worthless.  In  the  same  way  subscription  can 
just  as  well  be  made  to  the  Holy  Scripture.  The  incongruity 
mentioned  above  is  here  to  blame,  namely,  that  our  Confessions 
have  too  little  the  character  of  the  formula,  too  much  that  of 
theological  discussions.  To  the  old  ecumenical  creeds,  which  are 
pure  formulae,  subscription  can  be  made  without  any  hesita- 
tion." And  he  raises  the  question  whether  the  embarrassment 
cannot  be  met  "by  subscribing  only  to  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion, instead  of  to  the  Symbols  in  general,  since  the  Augsburg 
Confession  is  so  preeminently  our  Confession,  as  lately  has  been 
emphasized  by  Kahnis  in  his  Christentum  und  LutUertum.  It 
still  bears  especially  the  character  of  a  formula,  and  is  freest 
of  all  from  individual  peculiarities,  and  in  its  theological  expo- 
sitions enters  least  of  all  into  detail,  and  as  over  against  Rome 
it  presents  that  which  is  necessary  with  such  classic  precision, 
that  subscription  to  it  alone  at  the  same  time  avoids  the  un- 
necessary burdening  of  the  conscience  and  gives  to  the  Church 
necessary  security. ' '  * 

Again:  "In  close  connection  with  what  has  been  said  above 
stands  the  question  of  the  over-valuation  of  the  Confessions. 
It  is  not  very  easy  to  define  this  question  clearly,  however  dis- 
tinctly we  may  recognize  such  over-valuation  when  it  meets  us 

*  Brann,  Vnsere  Symbole,  Hire  Geschichte  xind  ihr  Eechi,  187-5,  pp.  59,  et 
seqq. 


THE   CONFESSIONS   IN   THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  595 

in  life.  The  distinction  between  norma  normans  and  norma 
normata  does  not  lead  ns  very  far  here;  for  the  main  word, 
norma,  is  everywhere  the  same.  A  norm  remains  a  norm,  how- 
ever it  became  such.  Can  the  Holy  Scripture  be  over-valued? 
We  must  unhesitatingly  answer,  Yes.  Only  over- valuation  is 
not  the  proper  word.  Sticking  to  the  letter  with  anxious  stupid- 
ity, instead  of  allowing  one's  self  to  be  filled  and  penetrated 
by  its  spirit — such  is  the  most  correct  way  to  speak  of  such  a 
phenomenon.  The  same  perverse  practice,  which  can  be  pursued 
in  regard  to  the  Scripture,  is  possible  in  regard  to  the  Symbols, 
and  has  only  too  often  really  existed.  Above  we  considered  the 
history  of  the  Lutheran  Symbols  in  the  time  when  reverence 
for  the  great  struggles  of  the  Reformation  degenerated  into 
symbololatry.  But  in  every  age,  even  in  the  present,  the  similar 
phenomenon  rises  up  here  and  there  in  circles  where  the  faith 
expressed  in  the  heart  becomes  living  again.  The  formal  right, 
the  right  of  the  letter,  they  probably  have  on  their  side  who  take 
this  mistaken  course.  But  they  forget  that  the  formal  right, 
the  right  of  the  letter,  everywhere,  and  most  of  all  in  the  realm 
of  the  Church,  becomes  the  worst  material  wrong.  When,  in 
§  12,  we  discussed  the  subject :  The  irreligious  use  of  a  Confes- 
sion of  religion,  we  did  not  deny  that  in  many  who  thus  err  there 
is  an  erring  conscience,  which  impels  them  in  this  course,  and 
that  they  sincerely  think  in  that  way  to  serve  their  Lord  and 
his  Church.  But  as  little  as  we  dare  hide  from  ourselves  the 
fact  that  that  is  not  the  case  in  all,  so,  also,  that  it  is  not  the 
new  man  born  of  God,  but  even  in  the  most  advanced  it  is  a 
remnant  of  the  old  Adam,  which  drives  them  to  such  a  use  of 
the  Symbols.  The  center,  both  of  the  Scriptures  and  of  all  the 
Symbols,  is  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  the  Saviour.  Espe- 
cially is  the  center  of  our  Lutheran  Symbols  justifying  faith  in 
this  Christ.  Whoever  now  receives  this  faith,  not  merely  in  his 
understanding,  but  into  his  heart,  directs  his  gaze  humbly  at  his 
own  poor,  weak  heart  and  to  the  author  and  finisher  of  all  faith, 
and  makes  his  own  growth  in  faith  and  consequent  sanctifieation 
his  chief  aim,  but  seeks  to  set  his  erring  brethren  right  mth 
a  gentle  and  humble  spirit,  such  an  one  adheres  in  a  truly 
spiritual  way  to  the  Symbols.  But  whoever  imagines  himself  to 
be  perfect,  but  then  plays  the  spy  so  as  to  see  that  everywhere 
the  letter  of  the  Symbols  is  adequately  reverenced,  and  then  by 
rigid  interpretation  and  with  everlasting  hair-splitting  imposes 
that  letter  as  a  canon  on  all  the  speeches  and  actions  of  the 


596  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

brethren,  and  is  ready  to  excommunicate  all  those  who  will  not 
accommodate  themselves  to  this  burdensome  yoke,  such  an  one 
may  be  true  to  the  Symbols,  but  he  stands  far  away  from  the 
Lord  and  His  Spirit,  whom  alone  the  Symbols  delight  to  honor. 
Whoever  is  in  truth  a  disciple  of  Jesus  learns  from  him,  before 
everything,  to  be  large-hearted,  learns  to  turn  from  the  erection 
of  a  perpendicular  legality,  learns  to  have  regard  for  the  infinite 
manifoldness  of  human  talents  and  stages  of  development,  and 
in  the  painful  matter  of  excommunication  will  limit  himself  to 
that  which  is  absolutely  necessary,  to  that  which  concerns  the 
life  of  the  center  of  the  Christian  faith.  The  narrow-hearted 
letter-slaves  of  the  Symbols  think  that  they  advance  the  interest 
of  the  Church  by  their  conduct.  They  do  not  see  that  in  that 
way  they  only  split  the  church  into  fragments.  When  the  exter- 
nal unity  of  the  Church  was  yet  maintained  by  the  power  of  the 
Princes,  it  was  possible  safely  to  employ  symbololatry  for  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  But  now  that  every  external  bond  in  its 
last  vestiges  has  disappeared,  what  can  be  the  consequence  of 
such  straining  of  gnats,  but  the  splitting  of  the  Church  into  a 
multitude  of  sects?  To  people  who  are  inclined  to  be  separatistic 
that  may  appear  to  be  an  advantage.  But  the  thoughtful  friend 
of  the  Church  can  see  in  it  only  a  great  misfortune.  But  there 
will  be  symbol-slaves  so  long  as  there  is  a  Church  and  a  Con- 
fession, for  the  tendency  in  that  direction  lies  deep  in  human 
nature.  Hence  w^e  must  bear  this  evil  as  we  have  to  bear  a  thou- 
sand others;  only  we  must  not  allow  ourselves  to  be  robbed  by 
this  abuse  of  the  Symbols.  They  are  a  great  and  indispensable 
treasure  whose  value  is  not  to  be  diminished  by  the  perverse  use 
which  small  spirits  and  proud  hearts  here  and  there  make  of 
it."* 

Even  this  essay  shows  that  the  confessional  question  was  not 
yet  settled  at  the  close  of  the  third  quarter  of  the  nineteenth 
centurj^  Neither  was  it  settled  by  the  close  of  the  century,  for 
Seeberg  tells  us  that  ''questions  are  here  involved  which  in  the 
new  century  will  lead  to  very  serious  complications  and  conflicts. 
What  is  meant  by  'fidelity  to  the  confessions,'  and  where  does 
real  ecclesiastical  difference  in  regard  to  Confession  begin — in 
formulating  theological  doctrines  almost  all  differ  from  it,  these 
are  the  difficult  questions  which  will  yet  frequently  engage  the 
attention  of  the  Church  and  of  theology.  The  solution  will  have 
to  be  justified  not  only  according  to  the  history  of  dogma  and 

*  Ibid.  pp.  63-65. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  597 

by  dogma :  it  must  also  be  made  plain  and  be  made  evident  to 
the  common  man. ' '  * 

The  Scandinavian  States  received  the  Reformation  at  an 
early  date.  As  early  as  1520  Christian  II.,  of  Denmark,  put  him- 
self in  communication  with  Wittenberg,  and  sought  from  the 
school  of  Luther  a  capable  and  learned  man  "to  purify  religion 
and  to  lead  the  ministry  again  from  the  authority  of  the  State 
to  the  serA'ice  of  the  Church."  The  Church  Order  of  1537  recog- 
nized onl}^  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  the  norm  for  faith,  "God's 
pure  Word,  which  is  the  Law  and  the  Gospel."  Frederick  II. 
(t  1588)  looked  upon  the  Book  of  Concord,  which  his  relative 
Elector  August  of  Saxony  sent  him  to  lay  before  the  Danish 
theologians,  as  a  disturber  of  peace  and  unity.  He  not  only  re- 
fused to  lay  it  before  his  theologians,  but  prohibited  the  sale 
of  it  in  Denmark  and  threatened  to  depose  all  ministers  in  whose 
possession  the  work  should  be  found.  In  1665  the  lex  regia.  of 
Frederick  III.  stipulated  that  the  Augsburg  Confession  of  1530 
should  be  the  creed  of  the  king  as  the  Supreme  Head  of  the  Dan- 
ish Church.  And  by  the  laws  of  Christian  V.  (1683)  the  Word  of 
God,  the  Ecumenical  Creeds,  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion and  Luther's  Catechism  were  made  obligatory  for  the 
clergy.  These,  then,  are  the  only  symbols  in  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord which  Denmark  has  ever  recognized.  The  Book  of  Con- 
cord, though  never  officially  recognized  in  Denmark,  has,  how- 
ever, been  translated  into  the  Danish  language,  and  has  been 
highly  esteemed  by  some  Danish  theologians.  The  formula  of 
■subscription  (1870)  reads  as  follows:  "I  promise  that  I  will 
be  diligent  in  preaching  the  Word  of  God  in  its  truth  and  pur- 
ity as  contained  in  the  Prophetical  and  Apostolic  writings  and 
in  the  Symbolical  Books  of  our  Danish  Evangelical-Lutheran 
Church.     .     .     ."t 

So  long  as  Xorway  was  united  with  Denmark,  1536-1814.  the 
ecclesiastical  laws  of  the  one  country  w^ere  much  the  same  as 
those  of  the  other.  The  Church  of  Norway  has  never,  either  be- 
fore or  after  the  dissolution  of  the  Union,  subscribed  to  any  other 
symbols  than  has  the  Church  of  Denmark.  Of  the  post-Reforma- 
tion symbols  thus  only  two  are  recognized  as  Symbolical  Books 
of  the  Norwegian  Church :  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Luth- 
er's small  Catechism.     The  ministers  promise  in  their  ordina- 

*  Seeberg,  p.  23.5,  ut  supra. 

t  Fr.  Nielsen,  Art.  Danmark,  in  Kirhe-Lexicon  for  Norden,  Aarhus,  1900, 
vol.  I.,  596  et  seqq. 


598  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

tion  VOW  that  they  "will  faithfully  preach  the  divine  doctrines 
contained  in  the  Writings  of  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  and  in 
the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church. ' '  The 
Book  of  Concord  was  translated  into  Norwegian  in  1868.  Nor- 
way enjoys  the  reputation  of  being  strongly  confessional.  Her 
attitude  to  the  symbols,  however,  is  by  no  means  servile.  This  is 
evinced  by  the  fact  that  at  the  Avell-known  ecclesiastical  confer- 
ence convened  in  1908  to  draw  up  a  constitution  of  the  Nor- 
wegian Church  reorganized  on  a  more  democratic  basis,  several 
eminent  clergymen,  no  less  known  for  piety  than  for  learning 
and  confessional  orthodoxy,  advocated  the  shelving  of  the  Nicene 
and  Athanasian  Symbols,  and  a  qualified  subscription  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  if  the  words  rite  uocatus,  Art.  xiv.,  apply 
only  to  clergymen,  thus  excluding  laymen.  A  country  where 
such  an  advocation  is  respectfully  listened  to,  will  of  course  hold 
its  owm  against  any  possible,  but  improbable,  attempt  to  foist 
the  Book  of  Concord  upon  it.  The  same  thing  may  be  affirmed 
of  Denmark,  in  whose  noted  Church  Lexicon  for  the  North 
some  astonishment  is  expressed  at  the  fact  that  the  Swedish 
Augustana  Synod  (1900),  of  the  General  Council  in  America, 
obligates  her  ministers  to  the  entire  Book  of  Concord.* 

Li  Siveden,  the  work  of  Reformation  was  begun  as  early  as 
1520,  by  Olaus  Petri.  In  1527,  the  Swedish  Church  was  severed 
from  Rome  and  from  the  canonical  law.  At  the  Council  of 
Westeras,  in  1544,  additional  Catholic  ordinances  and  usages 
were  abolished.  In  1593,  the  first  effort  was  made  to  organize  the 
Church  on  a  complete  Protestant  basis.  At  the  Council  of  Upsala, 
in  1593, all  pledged  themselves  to  stand  "by  the  pure  word  of  God, 
the  three  Symbols  and  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession."  The 
Church  law  of  1686  introduced  the  Book  of  Concord  as  symboli- 
cal. In  the  Constitution  of  1809,  mention  is  made  only  of  the 
Council  of  Upsala  and  of  the  Augsburg  Confession.  "This 
uncertainty  as  to  whether  the  entire  Book  of  Concord  has  sym- 
bolical authority  in  Sweden  or  not,  has  evoked  lively  controver- 
sies in  the  Church  (especially  in  1893),  and  the  end  has  not  yet 
been  reached. ' '  f  In  the  present  formula  of  subscription,  form- 
ulated in  1903,  the  clergyman  promises  "to  proclaim  in  its 
purity,  according  to  his  best  knowledge  and  conscience,  the  Word 
of  God  as  it  is  given  in  Holy  Scriptures  and  as  it  is  testified  to 
by  the  Confessional  books  of  our  Church. ' '  $ 

*  Kirke-Lexicon  for  Norden  III.,  397;  I.  175. 

t  Bealencyclopddie,^  Art.   Schweden.     By   Hjalmar   Holmquist. 

:c  For  further  information  on   the  confessional  relations  of   the   Spaiidi- 


THE   CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY.  599 

It  may  be  well  to  turn  to  two  eminent  theologians  and  pre- 
lates, respectively  of  the  Danish  and  of  the  Swedish  Lutheran 
Church,  to  find  what  they  have  expressed  as  their  views  in  regard 
to  the  obligatory  power  of  the  Symbols,  which  was  discussed  con- 
temporaneously in  Germany,  Say^Bishop^Martensen :  "If,  now, 
poi'ttBeously  in-^erffiSnyT  Says  Bishop  ]\Iartensen.  "If,  now, 
we  ask  in  what  sense  ecclesiastical  symbols  have  a  canonical 
character  in  relation  to  dogmatics,  the  answer  is,  they  have  it 
as  being  normae  normatae,  or  Quia  et  Quatenus  cum  sacra 
scriptura  consentiunt.  By  the  first  of  these  specifications 
(quia)  we  would  indicate  the  essential  oneness  of  church 
doctrines  Avith  the  biblical  doctrines;  by  the  second  (quatenus) , 
that  there  is  nevertheless  a  relative  difference  between  the  eccle- 
siastical and  the  Christian,  between  the  letter  of  the  symbols 
and  their  spiint,  between  the  form  and  idea.  Accordingly, 
in  announcing  that  we  intend  to  adhere  not  only  to  the  ecumenical 
symbols,  but  also  to  the  creed  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  particu- 
larly as  this  is  given  in  the  Augsburg  Confession,  we  mean 
thereby  that  we  intend  to  hold  to  the  type  of  sound  doctrine, 
which  is  therein  contained,  being  convinced  that  we  are  in  this 
way  most  sure  of  preserving  our  connection  with  the  Apostolic 
Church.  We  do  not  regard  the  Lutheran  Confession  as  a  work 
of  inspiration :  yet  no  more  do  we  regard  it  as  a  mere  work  of 
man,  inasmuch  as  the  age  of  the  Reformation  had  a  special 
vocation  to  bear  testimony  and  put  forth  confessions,  just  as 
had  those  periods  of  the  Church  in  which  the  earlier  creeds  were 
formed.  We  make  a  distinction  between  type  and  formula.  By 
the  type  of  Lutheranism  we  mean  its  ground  form,  its  inextin- 
guishable, fundamental  and  distinctive  features.  .  .  .  Whereas 
the  theological  formulae  in  which  this  form  is  expressed  are 
more  or  less  characterized  by  relativity  and  transitoriness. ' '  * 

And  Bishop  von  Scheele:  "By  means  of  this  connection  of 
quia  and  quatenus  the  subscriber  expresses  his  conviction  that 
in  the  essential  thing  there  prevails  perfect  agreement  between 
the  Scripture  and  the  Confession,  which  he  suhscribes,  but  on  the 
other  side  he  preserves  his  independence  in  regard  to  all  things 
not  essential,  that  is,  in  regard  to  that  which  does  not  belong 
to  the  fundamental  character,  to  the  ecclesiastical  type  presented 
in  the  Symbols. ' '  t 

navian  States,  see  Articles  on  Denmark  and  Sweden  in  Eealencyclopadie  ; 
the  article:  Evjen,  The  Scandinavians  and  the  Book  of  Concord,  The  Luth- 
eran Quarterly  for  April,  1906;  Kollner,  I.,  121,  122;  Johannsen,  pp.  608 
■et  seqq. 

*  Christian  Dogmatics,  §  28. 

j  Theologische  Symholik  (1886),  I.,  31. 


600  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    THE    NINETEENTH    CENTURY. 

Again :  ''A  Church,  which  in  truth  claims  the  name  Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran,  and  wishes  to  perpetuate  it,  must  firmly  maintain 
the  principle  that  subscription  to  the  doctrine  fixed  by  the 
Church  does  not  have  reference  to  the  letter,  but  only  to  the 
particular  type  of  CJiristianity  which  is  expressed,  and  this,  for 
the  reason  that  we  know  and  are  certain  that  it  (the  type  of 
doctrine)  is,  in  all  that  is  essential,  true  and  genuine,  and  hence 
that  it  cannot  be  surrendered  without  at  the  same  time  surren- 
dering Christianity  itself."  * 

*  Ut  Supra,  II.,  81. 


CHAPTER  XXXII. 

THE   CONFESSIONS  IN  AMERICA. 

Lutheran  congregations  were  established  in  America  as  early 
as  the  seventeenth  century.  Their  members  came  from  Sweden, 
Holland  and  Germany.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  brought 
with  them  the  determination  to  adhere  to  the  Lutheran  Confes- 
sions, though  the  precise  sense  in  which  they  subscribed  the 
Confessions  is  not  now  a  matter  of  record.  AVe  know,  however, 
that  the  instruction  given  in  1642  to  Governor  Printz,  of  New 
Sweden,  by  the  Swedish  Crown,  was  as  follows :  ' '  Above  all 
things,  shall  the  Governor  consider  and  see  to  it  that  a  true  and 
due  worship,  becoming  honor,  laud  and  praise,  be  paid  to  the 
]\Iost  High  God  in  all  things,  and  to  that  end  all  proper  care  shall 
be  taken  that  divine  service  be  jealously  performed  according  to 
the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Council  of  Upsala,  and 
the  ceremonies  of  the  Swedish  Church;  and  all  persons,  but  es- 
pecially the  young,  shall  be  duly  instructed  in  all  the  articles  of 
their  Christian  faith,  and  all  good  discipline  shall  in  like  manner 
he  duly  exercised  and  received."  The  pastors  and  congregations 
of  Dutch  extraction  subscribed  the  Amsterdam  Church  Order, 
which  pledged  the  congregations  to  the  unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession.  This  Amsterdam  Church  Order  had  existed  since 
1597.  Later  it  included  all  the  Symbolical  Books.  The  posi- 
tion of  the  Germans  is  clearly  indicated  in  the  title  of  one  of 
their  Church  Books,  which  is:  ''Church  Book  of  the  Cluirch 
of  the  Germans  w^ho  embrace  the  Augsburg  Confession."  We 
also  knoAV  that  at  least  some  of  the  German  pastors,  as,  for  in- 
stance, Muhlenberg  in  1739  and  Brunnholtz  in  1744,  had,  at 
their  ordination,  pledged  themselves  to  all  of  the  Symbolical 
Books,  and  some,  if  not  all  those  sent  from  Halle,  were  commis- 
sioned "to  teach  the  Word  of  God  in  public  and  in  private, 
pure  and  uncorrupt,  according  to  the  rule  and  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  and  also  of  the  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church."  But  these,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
had  the  Pietistic  conception  of  the  Symbolical  Books.  They 
were  not  confessionalists.  ^ 

(601) 


602  THE    CONFESSIONS   IN   AMERICA. 

1.  The  Older  Organizations. 
In  August,  1748,  six  Lutheran  ministers  and  a  number  of 
laymen  met  in  Philadelphia,  and  organized  the  first  Lutheran 
Synod  in  America,  though  an  attempt  had  been  made  to  organ- 
ize one  in  New  York  in  1735.  The  Philadelphia  organization 
has  been  generally  kno-^Ti  as  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania, 
though  changes  have  been  made  in  the  name.  This  first  per- 
manent Lutheran  organization  did  not  proclaim  a  constitution, 
neither  did  it  formally  declare  its  relations  to  the  Confessions 
of  the  Lutheran  Church.  But  it  did  two  things  that  clearly 
indicated  that  it  meant  to  be  Lutheran:  It  ordained,  in  1748, 
John  Nicholas  Kurtz,  to  the  ministry,  who  obligated  himself 
to  teach  in  his  congregation  "nothing,  whether  publicly  or 
privately,  but  what  harmonizes  with  the  Word  of  God  and  the 
Confessions  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church.  .  .  . "  Also : 
' '  The  invited  preachers  and  delegated  elders  of  our  United  Con- 
gregations," Sunday,  August  14th,  1748,  consecrated  St.  Mich- 
ael's Church,  Philadelphia,  when  one  of  the  preachers,  presum- 
ably ]\luhlenberg,  called  to  mind  "that  the  foundation  stones 
of  this  church  had  been  laid  with  the  intention  that  in  it  the 
Evangelical  LutTieran  doctrine,  according  to  the  foundation  of 
the  Prophets  and  Apostles,  and  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  all  the  other  Symbolical  Books  should  be  taught. 

In  some  of  the  charters  and  constitutions  of  local  congrega- 
tions of  those  and  of  subsequent  days,  we  find  that  besides  the 
Augsburg^  Confession  "the  other  Symbolical  Books"  are  named 
as  confessional  basis.  But  in  a  still  larger  number  the  pastors 
are  required  to  preach  the  Word  of  God  as  given  by  Prophets 
and  Apostles,  "and  in  accordance  with  the  unaltered  Augsburg 
Confession."  In  the  constitution  of  St.  Michael's,  Philadelphia, 
1762,  it  is  declared  that  the  ministers  shall  "declare  the  Word 
of  God  publicly,  in  a  pure,  brief,  plain,  solid  and  edifying 
manner,  according  to  the  foundation  of  the  Apostles  and 
Prophets,  and  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession."  In  the 
Constitution  of  the  INIinisterium,  "in  force  in  1781,"  it  is  de- 
clared that  "every  minister  professes  that  he  holds  the  Word  of 
God  and  our  Symbolical  Books  in  doctrine  and  life. ' '  f  And 
in  1783  the  Ministerium  voted  to  grant  license  "for  preaching 

*  Documentary  History  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Ministerium  of 
Pennsylvania,  pp.  7,  21. 

t  Documentary  History,  p.  175. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA. 


603 


and  the  baptism  of  childreu"  to  a  candidate  on  condition  of  his 
signing  a  "revers"  ''to  preach  the  Word  of  God  in  its  purity, 
according  to  Law  and  Gospel,  as  it  is  explained  in  its  chief  points 
in  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the  other  Symbolical  Books. ' '  * 
But  all  this  is  general.    In  not  a  single  instance  have  we  dis- 
covered that  the  iSIinisterium  stated  specifically  how  the  Confes- 
sions are  to  be  received  and  understood.     Indeed,  it  has  been 
seriously   questioned  whether   "the   exaction   of   a   promise   to 
conform  to  the  Symbolical  Books  ivas  ever  habitual. ' '  t    And  it 
is  certain  that  during  the  later  years  of  the  eighteenth  century 
the  Confessions  fell  into  general,  if  not  total,   desuetude  for 
ordination.    IMuhlenberg   was   now   dead    (1787)    and    German 
Rationalism  had  invaded  the  ranks  of  its  ministry,  so  that  in  the 
Constitution  of  1792  there  is  absolutely  no  allusion  to  any  Luth- 
eran symbolical  book.     Candidates  are  required,  at  their  ordina- 
tion, "to  preach  the  Word  of  God  in  its  purity  according  to  the 
law  and  the  gospel."     This   Constitution   was  republished  in 
1813  and  again  in  1841,  but  still  without  allusion  to  any  Lutheran 
symbolical  book.     In  the  liturgy  published  by  the  JMinisterium, 
in  the  year  1818,  the  form  for  ordination  does  not  obligate  to 
any  symbolical  book,  and  the  formula  of  distribution   in  the 
Lord's  Supper  is  certainly  not  that  of  the  Lutheran  Church. 
The  Constitution  of  the  New  York  Ministerium,  1816,  declares : 
"We  establish  it  as  a  fundamental  rule  of  this  association,  that 
the  person  to  be  ordained  shall  not  be  required  to  make  any 
other  engagement  than  this,  that  he  will  faithfully  teach,  as 
well  as  perform  all  other  ministerial  duties,  and  regulate  his 
walk  and  conversation  according  to  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  as  contained  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  and 
that  he  will  observe  this  constitution,  while  he  remains  a  member 
of  this  Ministerium. "  $     This  same  declaration  is  retained  in 
the    amended    Constitution    of    1836, §    and    in    the    ordination 
service    of   the    contemporaneous   liturgy    of   this   INIinisterium 
there  is  absolutely  no  reference  to  any  Lutheran  symbolical  book, 
and  candidates  are  asked  if  they  are  satisfied  that  ' '  the  Script- 
ures contain  a  full  account  of  the  religion  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  of  all  things  necessary  for  eternal  salvation."     But 
it  is  not  said  what  the  Scriptures  are,  nor  who  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is.    In  1856  a  third  edition  of  the  Constitution  was  pub- 

'  *  Ut  supra,  p.  188. 

t  S.  S.  Schmucker,  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  p.   173. 
i  P.   20. 
§  P.  16. 


604  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA. 

lished  with  the  "fundamental  rule"  unchanged.  The  fact  is 
that  during  the  first  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  not  a  few 
pastors  of  these  two  ministeriums  had  departed  from  some  of 
the  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Confessions  and  had 
gone  over  to  the  ranks  of  the  Rationalists  and  Socinians.* 

And  in  addition  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania  had  be- 
come decidedly  unionistic.  In  1836  this  Ministerium  "resolved 
that  we  feel  it  our  duty  to  provide  as  much  as  possible  for 
closer  union  of  the  churches  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  a 
perfect  union  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  and  the  Evangelical 
Eeformed  Church  might  be  followed  by  the  most  blessed  ad- 
vantages." Two  years  later  the  Ministerium  considered  the 
advisability  of  publishing  "an  evangelical  paper  common  to 
bo'th  churches  in  our  country,  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed," 
and  resolved, 

"1.  That  the  publication  of  such  a  paper  is  loudly  and  em- 
phatically demanded  by  the  wants  of  our  Church. 

"2.  That  a  paper  common  to  the  interests  of  both  the  Re- 
formed and  Lutheran  Churches,  and  sustained  by  both,  is  highly 
desirable."  And  it  was  quite  the  custom  for  the  Ministerium, 
at  its  conventions,  to  introduce  Presbyterian,  Baptist  and  Re- 
formed clergymen  "as  advisory  members."! 

And  that  the  same  body  continued  in  the  attitude  of  neglect  of 
the  employment  of  the  Confessions  until  beyond  the  middle  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  its  liturgy, 
published  in  1842  in  cooperation  with  the  SjTiod  of  New  York 
and  the  Synod  of  Ohio,  contains  no  pledge  to  any  confession; 
and  also  by  the  representation  of  the  Reverend  W.  J.  ]\Iann, 
D.  D. :  "The  Synod  does  not  require  its  applicants  for  member- 
ship to  subscribe  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  receives  candi- 
dates by  examination  and  a  colloquy,  and  members  of  any  other 
Lutheran  ministerium,  upon  the  presentation  of  an  honorable 
dismissal  from  the  body  with  which  they  stood  last  connected, 
without  further  incpiiry  concerning  their  orthodox}^"  {  Finally, 
in  1860,  the  body  returned  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Script- 
ures as  given  in  the  confessional  writings  of  our  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Church,  especially  in  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion and  Luther's  Small  Catechism, §   and  in  1863  it  is  said: 

*  S.  S.  Sehmucker,  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  pp.  175  et  seqq.,  201-205." 
t  See  the  Minutes  for  1822,  p.  16;  1823,  p.  15;  1839,  p.  5;  1841,  pp.  9,  11. 
t  L\itheranism  in  America,  1857,  p.  88. 
§  Minutes  for  1860,  p.  45. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA.  605 

"The  Synod  confesses  to  all  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  according  to  the  explanation  of  the  same  given 
in  the  Confessions  of  our  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  namely, 
in  the  unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  Luther's  Small 
Catechism,"  *  and  in  1867  the  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles, 
the  Large  Catechism  and  the  Formula  of  Concord  were  added. f 

Thus  during  a  period  of  more  than  sixty  years  the  Ministeriura 
of  Pennsylvania,  sometimes  called  the  Synod  of  Pennsylvania 
and  Adjacent  States,  gave  no  official  recognition  to  the  Augs- 
burg Confession,  nor  to  the  other  Lutheran  symbols,  and  em- 
ployed no  confessional  test  of  orthodoxy,  and  during  much  of 
that  time  it  earnesitly  sought  to  effect  union  with  the  Reformed 
Church.  Many  of  her  clergy  had  also  strayed  from  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Lutheran  Confession. 

The  entire  situation,  during  the  period  which  we  have  briefly 
sketched,  beginning  with  the  year  1748,  is  .stated  comprehensively 
by  the  late  Prof.  S.  S.  Schmucker,  D.  D.  (1799-1873),  in  the 
following  propositions : 

"1.  The  patriarchs  of  our  Church  did  at  first  practically 
profess  the  former  Symbolical  Books  of  our  Church  in  Ger- 
many, by  avowing  then,  or  in  most  instances,  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession at  the  erection  of  their  houses  of  worship  and  in  various 
cases  at  the  induction  of  men  into  the  ministerial  office. 

"2.  They  soon  relaxed  from  the  rigor  of  symbolical  requisi- 
tion, and  referred  only  to  the  Augsburg  Confession,  generally 
omitting  all  reference  to  the  former  Symbolical  Books,  except  the 
use  of  the  Smaller  Catechism  of  Luther  in  the  instruction  of 
the  rising  generation. 

"3.  Neither  they  nor  their  successors  ever  formally  adopted 
these  Symbolical  Books  as  binding  on  our  Church  in  this  country, 
as  tests  of  admission  or  discipline. 

"4.  About  the  beginning  of  this  [19th]  century  they  ceased, 
in  fact,  to  require  assent  even  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  at 
licensure  and  ordination,  and  demanded  only  faith  in  the  Word 
of  God,  thus  practically  rejecting  (as  they  had  a  right  to  do) 
all  the  Symbolical  Books  as  tests;  though  still  respecting  and 
occasionally  referring  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  sub- 
stantial expose  of  the  doctrines  which  they  taught."  t 


"  Synodal  Ordnung,  1863,  p.  3. 
t  Constitution,  p.  4. 

i  The  American  Lutheran  Church  (1851),  pp.  157-8.   See  also  by  the  same 
author:    The  Church  of  the  Bedeemer,  pp.  88-93. 


606  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN   A:\IERICA. 

2.  The  General  Synod. 
The  General  S^^lod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in 
the  United  States  is  the  child  of  the  Ministerium  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, which  at  its  convention  in  Harrisburg  in  1818  resolved 
to  sketch  a  plan  for  the  closer  union  of  the  different  Lutheran 
SjTiods  in  the  United  States.  At  Baltimore  in  1819  the  j\Iin- 
isterium  adopted  a  plan  of  union,  known  as  the  Plan-Entwurf . 
As  the  ]\Iinisterium  was  at  that  time  confessionless,  we  are  not 
surprised  to  find  that  it  contains  no  reference  to  any  Lutheran 
Confession,  though  the  Small  Catechism  of  Luther  and  the 
liturgy  of  1818  were  "to  continue  in  public  use  at  pleasure." 
The  effort  made  by  the  Reverend  G.  Shober,  special  delegate 
from  the  Synod  of  North  Carolina,  to  have  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession recognized  in  the  Plan  was  defeated  by  the  members  of 
the  committee  from  the  INlinisterium.  The  General  Synod  was 
organized  at  Hagersto^^Ti,  ]\Iaryland,  in  1820.  The  Constitution 
adopted  makes  no  recognition  of  any  Lutheran  Confession ;  but 
it  declared  that  the  General  Synod  shall  not  have  power  to  pre- 
scribe "uniform  ceremonies  of  religion  for  every  part  of  the 
Church;"  nor  shall  it  introduce  changes  in  matters  of  faith 
which  might  burden  the  consciences  of  brethren  in  Christ.  The 
reason  for  this  extremely  liberal  and  confessionless  condition 
of  the  General  Synod  at  its  organization  is  found  in  the  fact 
that  the  representatives  of  the  jNIinisterium  of  Pennsylvania  out- 
numbered the  representatives  of  the  three  other  synods,  and  in 
the  fact  that  the  said  Ministerium  had  been  meditating  a  more 
comprehensive  union.  Even  while  a  member  of  the  General 
SjTiod,  the  iNIinisterium  "resolved,  That  a  committee  of  Synod 
be  appointed  to  consult  in  the  fear  of  God  on  the  propriety  of  a 
proposition  for  a  general  union  of  our  Church  in  this  country 
with  the  Evangelical  Reformed  Church,  and  the  possibility  and 
the  proper  manner  of  carrying  out  eventually  such  a  proposi- 
tion."* Also  in  its  action  dissolving  its  connection  with  the 
General  Synod  in  1823,  the  said  ^Ministerium  expressed  a  desire 
to  enter  into  closer  connection  with  the  Reformed,  and  to  call 
such  connection  "a  union  of  the  German  Protestant  Church."  t 
As  the  Ministerium  of  New  York  did  not  send  delegates  to  the 
General  S^Tiod  after  the  meeting  for  organization,  and  as  the 
IMinisterium  of  Pennsylvania  withdrew  in  1823,  the  Lutheran 
Confessional  consciousness  that  resided  in  the  remaining  synods 
had  the  opportunity  and  the  power  at  once  to  express  itself  in 
*  See  Minutes,  1822,  p.  16.  t  Minutes,  1823,  p.  15. 


THE   CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA.  607 

the  recognition  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  in  the  declara- 
tion that  "this  General  Synod  disclaims  the  intention  to  form 
a  union  of  different  denominations" — a  determination  to  which 
the  body  has  always  adhered. 

The  General  Synod  had  now  entered  on  a  new  career.  At  its 
meeting  in  Frederick,  Maryland,  in  1825,  it  resolved  forthwith 
to  establish  a  theological  seminary  "which  shall  be  exclusively 
devoted  to  the  glory  of  our  divine  Redeemer,  Jesus  Christ,  who 
is  God  over  all,  blessed  forever,"  thus  at  once  making  a  protest 
against  the  Socinianism  that  had  crept  into  the  two  Ministeriums 
which  had  severed  relations  with  the  body.  It  was  further  de- 
clared that  "in  this  seminary  shall  be  taught  in  the  German  and 
English  languages,  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  as  contained  in  the  Augsburg  Confession."  The  oath 
for  the  professors  in  the  said  seminary  prescribed  at  this  same 
time,  was  as  follows:  "I  do  ex  animo  believe  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  to  be  the  inspired  AVord  of  God 
and  the  only  perfect  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  I  believe  the 
Augsburg  Confession  and  the  Catechisms  of  Luther  to  be  a 
summary  and  just  exhibition  of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of 
the  Word  of  God." 

Thus  had  the  General  Synod  become  Lutheran  in  reality,  and 
deserves  even  higher  commendation  than  is  bestowed  in  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph  :  ' '  The  General  Synod  was  a  protest  against 
the  Socinianizing  tendency  in  New  York,  and  the  schemes  of  a 
union  with  the  Reformed  in  Pennsylvania  and  with  the  Epis- 
copalians in  North  Carolina.  It  stood  for  the  independent  exist- 
ence of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  America,  and  the  clear  and 
unequivocal  confession  of  a  positive  faith.  It  failed,  as  its 
founders  in  the  several  synods  had  failed,  in  specifically  deter- 
mining the  contents  of  this  faith.  It  was  not  ready  yet,  as  these 
sjmods  were  not  ready,  to  return  to  the  foundations  laid  by 
^Muhlenberg  and  his  associates,  and  from  which  there  had  been 
a  general  recession  from  twenty-five  to  thirty  years  before. 
Lament  defects  as  we  may,  the  General  Synod  saved  the  Church, 
as  it  became  anglicized,  from  the  calamity  of  the  type  of  doctrine 
which,  with  the  New  York  Ministerium,  had  been  introduced 
into  the  English  language.  It  had  an  outlook  that  included  in 
its  sweep  the  entire  Church  in  all  its  interests,  as  the  reports  on 
the  state  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  in  the  various  synods  and 
throughout  the  Avorld,  appended  to  its  minutes,  show."  * 

*  Jacobs,  History  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  p.  362. 


608  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA. 

In  1829  the  General  Synod  adopted  a  Constitution  for  the 
o-overnment  of  district  synods.  This  Constitution  required  can- 
didates for  ordination  to  answer  affirmatively  to  the  question : 
"Do  you  believe  that  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Word 
of  God  are  taught  in  a  manner  substantially  correct  in  the  doc- 
trinal articles  of  the  Augsburg  Confession?"  It  was  also 
declared  that  "the  directory  for  the  government  of  individual 
congregations  and  the  constitution  for  synods  and  that  of  the 
General  Synod  are  parts  of  one  entire  system  of  Lutheran  Church 
government,"  and  as  such  the  three  documents  were  printed 
together  in  the  Minutes  of  1829, 

In  1868  the  General  Synod  changed  her  doctrinal  basis  to 
"the  Word  of  God  as  contained  in  the  Canonical  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  a  correct  exhibi- 
tion of  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Divine  AVord  and  of  the 
faith  of  our  Church  founded  upon  that  Word."  This  is  still 
(1909)  the  doctrinal  basis  of  the  General  Synod.  Hence  it  can 
be  said  that  the  General  Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Church  has  returned  fully  "to  the  foundations  laid  by  IMuhlen- 
berg  and  his  associates. ' '  The  General  Synod  has  advanced  even 
beyond  them;  for  they  made  no  explicit  official  declaration  in 
regard  to  the  Lutheran  Confessions  as  to  what  they  are  or  as  to 
w^hat  they  teach;  and  from  about  the  year  1762  they  founded 
nearly  all  their  churches  on  the  Word  of  God  and  on  the  Augs- 
burg Confession  without  making  any  reference  whatever  to  the 
other  Lutheran  Confessions.  Thus  they  regarded  the  AVord  of 
God  and  the  Augsburg  Confession  as  furnishing  a  sufficient 
basis  for  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  has  been  the  case  ever  since 
-the  Augsburg  Confession  was  delivered  to  the  Emperor  Charles 
v.,  in  the  year  1530,  though  the  Small  Catechism  has  been  almost 
everywhere  authorized  and  used  as  a  manual  of  instruction  for 
the  young,  which  has  been  and  is  still  done  by  the  General 
SjTiod. 

3.     The  General  Council. 

In  1866  The  German  Evangelical  Lutheran  Ministerium  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Adjacent  States,  otherwise  known  as  the  Synod 
of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Pennsylvania  Synod,  withdrew  from 
the  General  Synod  and  appointed  a  committee  "to  prepare  and 
issue  a  fraternal  address  to  all  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synods, 
ministers  and  congregations  in  the  United  States  and  the 
Canadas,  which  confess  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  in- 


THE   CONFESSIONS    IN   AMERICA.  609 

viting  them  to  unite  in  a  convention  for  the  purpose  of  forming 
a  Union  of  Lutheran  Sj'iiods.  "*  In  response  to  this  invitation, 
representatives  of  thirteen  Lutheran  Synods  met  in  Reading, 
Pennsylvania,  December  12-14,  1866,  and  adopted  certain  Fun- 
damental Principles  of  Faith  anel  Church  Polity,  which  are  held 
"of  necessity  presupposed  in  any  genuine  union  of  Evangelical 
Lutheran  Synods : 

"I.  There  must  be  and  abide  through  all  time,  one  holy 
Christian  Church,  which  is  the  assembly  of  all  believers,  among 
whom  the  Gospel  is  purely  preached,  and  the  Holy  Sacraments 
are  administered  as  the  Gospel  demands.  To  the  true  Unity  of 
the  Church,  it  is  iiufficieut  that  there  be  agreement  touching 
the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel  that  it  be  preached  in  one  accord,  in 
its  pure  sense,  and  that  the  Sacraments  be  administered  con- 
formably to  God's  Word. 

"II.  The  true  Unity  of  a  particular  Church  in  virtue  of 
which  men  are  truly  members  of  one  and  the  same  Church,  and 
by  which  any  Church  abides  in  real  identity,  and  is  entitled  to 
a  continuation  of  her  name,  is  unity  in  doctrine  and  faith  and 
in  the  sacraments,  to  wit :  That  she  continues  to  teach  and  set 
forth,  and  that  her  true  members  embrace  from  the  heart,  and 
use  the  articles  of  faith  and  the  sacraments  as  they  were  held 
and  administered  when  the  Church  came  into  distinctive  being 
and  received  a  distinctive  name. 

"III.  The  LTnity  of  the  Church  is  witnessed  to,  and  made 
manifest  in,  the  solemn,  public  and  official  confessions  which 
are  set  forth,  to  wit :  The  generic  Unity  of  the  Christian  Church 
in  the  general  Creeds,  and  the  specific  Unity  of  pure  parts  of 
the  Christian  Church  in  their  specific  Creeds;  one  chief  object 
of  both  classes  of  which  Creeds  is,  that  Christians  who  are  in 
the  Unity  of  faith  may  know  each  other  as  such,  and  may  have 
a  visible  bond  of  fellowship, 

"IV.  That  Confessions  may  be  such  a  testimony  of  Unity 
and  bond  of  Union,  they  must  be  accepted  in  every  statement 
of  doctrine,  in  their  own  true,  native,  original  and  only  sense, 
Those  who  set  them  forth  and  subscribe  them,  must  not  only 
agree  to  use  the  same  words,  but  must  use  and  understand  those 
words  in  one  and  the  same  sense. 

"V.  The  Unity  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  as  a 
portion  of  the  holy  Christian  Church,  depends  upon  her  abiding 
in  one  and  the  same  faith,   in  confessing  which  she  obtained 

*  Appendix  to  Minutes,  1866,  p.  23. 
39 


610  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA. 

her  distinctive  being  and  name,  her  political  recognition,  and 
her  history. 

"VI.  The  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  is  by  preeminence 
the  confession  of  that  faith.  The  acceptance  of  its  doctrines 
and  the  avowal  of  them  without  equivocation  or  mental  reserva- 
tion, make,  mark  and  identify  that  Church,  Avhich  alone  in  the 
true,  original,  historical  and  honest  sense  of  the  term  is  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Church. 

"VII.  The  only  Churches,  therefore,  of  any  laud,  which  are 
properly  in  the  Unity  of  that  Communion,  and  by  consequence 
entitled  to  its  name,  Evangelical  Lutheran,  are  those  which  sin- 
cerely hold  and  truthfully  confess  the  doctrines  of  the  Unaltered 
Augsburg  Confession. 

"VIII.  We  accept  and  aclmowledge  the  doctrines  of  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession  in  its  original  sense  as  through- 
out in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth  of  which  God's  Word  is. 
the  only  rule.  W^e  accept  its  statements  of  truth  as  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  Canonical  Scriptures :  AVe  reject  the  errors 
it  condemns,  and  believe  that  all  which  it  commits  to  the  liberty 
of  the  Church  of  right  belongs  to  that  liberty. 

"IX.  In  thus  formally  accepting  and  acknowledging  the 
Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  we  declare  our  conviction  that 
the  other  Confessions  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  in- 
asmuch as  they  set  forth  none  other  than  its  system  of  doctrine, 
and  articles  of  faith,  are  of  necessity  pure  and  scriptural.  Pre- 
eminent among  such  accordant,  pure  and  scriptural  statements 
of  doctrine,  by  their  intrinsic  excellence,  by  the  great  and  neces- 
sary ends  for  which  they  were  prepared,  by  their  historical  posi- 
tion, and  by  the  general  judgment  of  the  Church,  are  these :  The 
Apology  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  the  Schmalkald  Articles, 
the  Catechisms  of  Luther  and  the  Formula  of  Concord,  all  of 
which  are,  with  the  Unaltered  Augsburg,  in  the  perfect  har- 
mony of  one  and  the  same  scriptural  faith." 

The  majority  of  the  synods  that  adopted  the  Fundamental 
Principles,  printed  above,  completed  an  organization  at  Fort 
Wayne,  Indiana,  November  20-26,  1867,  which  bears  the  official 
title:  The  General  Council  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church 
in  North  America.  Of  the  Fundameiital  Principles,  or  doctrinal 
basis  of  the  General  Council,  it  may  be  said  that  it  binds  to  the 
very  words  of  the  Symbols,  and  makes  no  distinction  between 
their  form  and  their  substance,  and  virtually  it  places  them  on 
a  level  of  authority  with  the  Holy  Scriptures,  since  it  declares. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA.  611 

that  ''the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confession,  in  its  original  sense, 
is  throughout  in  conformity  with  the  pure  truth  of  which  God's 
Word  is  the  only  rule ; ' '  for  if  it  be  throughout  in  conformity 
with  the  pure  truth  of  God's  AVord,  then  it  must  have  the  same 
authority  as  God's  Word,  for  things  that  are  throughout  in 
conformity  with  each  other  must  have  the  same  value  and 
authority.  Certainly  in  binding  power  this  basis  surpasses  any- 
thing of  the  kind  now  in  force  in  any  other  existing  body  of 
Lutherans,  and  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  the  views  of  the 
eminent  Lutheran  theologians  quoted  above  in  Chapter  XXX., 
and  with  the  formulae  of  subscription  and  doctrinal  statements 
exhibited  in  the  same  chapter. 

But  whatever  may  have  been  the  reason,  the  General  Coun- 
cil did  not  succeed  in  gathering  to  itself  all  the  Lutherans  in 
North  America  who  confess  "the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion." Not  all  the  sjTiods  represented  in  the  preliminary  or- 
ganization at  Reading,  in  1866,  sent  delegates  to  help  to  com- 
plete the  organization  at  Fort  Wayne,  nor  has  its  Lutheran 
soundness  been  acknowledged  by  all  Lutheran  bodies  which,  like 
itself,  pledge  themselves  to  all  the  Lutheran  Confessions,  and 
some  synods  which,  at  different  times  have  joined  themselves 
to  the  General  Council,  have  seceded.  Besides,  the  body  was 
confronted  at  Fort  Wayne  with  what  has  come  to  be  known  as 
"the  four  points." 

"1.  What  relation  ivill  this  venerable  hody  in  the  future 
sustain  to  Chiliasm? 

"2.     Mixed  Communion? 

"3.     The  exchanging  pulpits  with  sectarians? 

"4.     Secret  or  unchurchly  societies?"  * 

Those  who  propounded  the  questions  have  not  been  satisfied 
with  the  answers  that  have  been  rendered  by  the  General  Coun- 
cil, nor  with  its  practice  in  regard  to  the  principles  which  they  are 
supposed  to  involve ;  and  some  of  the  subjects  named  have  pro- 
duced much  controversy  and  alienation  within  the  General  Coun- 
cil itself,  as  especially  the  so-called  Galesburg  Rule :  "I.  The 
Rule,  which  accords  with  the  Word  of  God  and  with  the  Con- 
fessions of  our  Church  is :  Lutheran  pulpits  for  Lutheran  min- 
isters only.  Lutheran  altars  for  Lutheran  communicants  only. 
II.  The  exceptions  to  the  rule  belong  to  the  sphere  of  privilege, 
not  of  right.  III.  The  determination  of  the  exceptions  is  to  be 
made  in  consonance  with  these  principles,  by  the  conscientious 

*  Minutes,  p.  12. 


612  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA. 

judgment  of  pastors,  as  the  cases  arise. ' '  *  The  German  min- 
isters of  the  General  Council  have  strongly  inclined  to  place 
stress  on  the  word  "only,"  and  to  interpret  the  "Rule"  rig- 
idly, Avhile  the  ministers  of  American  birth  and  education 
have  inclined  to  make  "exceptions."  And  as  to  the  theology 
taught  in  the  General  Council,  it  is  essentially  the  Dogmatic  of 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  as  is  shown  by  A  Sum- 
mary of  the  Christian  Faith.  By  Henry.  Eyster  Jacobs,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,  Norton  Professor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Lutheran 
Theological  Seminary  at  Philadelphia,  1905. 

■i.     The  Sy nodical  Conference. 

This  body,  popularly  known  as  the  "  Missourians, "  because  it 
is  an  accretion  round  the  Missouri  Sjiiod,  was  organized  in  the 
year  1872.  In  several  spheres  of  Christian  activity  it  is  wide- 
awake and  aggressive,  and  is  exceedingly  zealous  for  "the  pure 
doctrine."  Its  critics  declare  that  its  one-sided  and  almost  ex- 
clusive devotion  to  Dogmatic,  and  its  consequent  relative  neglect 
of  Exegesis  and  History,  must  sooner  or  later  bring  about  its 
dissolution.  Certainly  it  has  not  been  able  to  retain  all  the 
synods  that  have  entered  into  organic  relation  with  it,  and  it 
has  been  exceedingly  controversial  towards  other  synods,  which, 
like  itself,  acknowledge  all  the  Lutheran  Confessions.  Its  gen- 
eral character  has  been  described  by  (supposedly)  a  professor 
in  the  Lutheran  (General  Council)  Theological  Seminary,  near 
Philadelphia,  as  follows : 

"The  Synodical  Conference  has  failed  to  become,  and  prob- 
ably was  never  intended  to  become,  a  general  union  of  Ijutheran 
synods  in  America.  It  has  simply  been  a  training  school  to  pre- 
pare synods  for  being  absorbed  by  ^Missouri.  As  an  organization 
it  has  no  significance  for  the  future  development  of  our  Church. 
It  has  cut  itself  entirely  loose  from  the  historical  development 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  country,  and  from  that  in  Europe 
for  the  latter  centuries.  According  to  its  conception,  the  Luth- 
eran Church  is  a  stream  which,  after  becoming  a  mighty  river, 
and  running  with  wide  sweep  through  a  century,  plunged  under- 
ground, and  for  three  centuries  passed  through  a  hidden  channel 
(sending  up  a  few  springs  here  and  there  to  mark  its  track), 
until  at  last  it  emerged  into  the  light  of  day  once  more  in  this 
country,  with  the  arrival  on  these  shores  of  a  devoted  band  of 
Saxon  emigrants. ' '  f 

*  Minutes  for  1875,  p.  17 ;   also  Minutes  for  1876. 
t  The  Lxitlieran,  January  15,  1891.     . 


THE    COXFESSIOXS    IN    AMERICA.  613 

The  doctrinal  basis  of  the  Synoclical  Conference  is  stated  in 
these  words :  ' '  The  Synodical  Conference  confesses  the  Canoni- 
cal Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  as  the  Word  of 
God,  and  the  Confession  of  1580, called  'Concordia,'  as  its  own"  * 
— meaning  by  "Concordia,"  the  entire  Book  of  Concord.  Every 
candidate  at  his  ordination  declares:  "I  recognize  the  three 
Ecumenical  Creeds  of  the  Church,  the  Unaltered  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  its  Apology,  the  Schmalkald  Articles,  the  two  Cate- 
chisms of  Luther  and  the  Formula  of  Concord,  as  the  pure, 
unadulterated  explanation  and  statement  of  the  Divine  Word 
and  AYill :  I  confess  them  as  my  own  confessions  and  will  exer- 
cise my  ministry  unto  the  end  faithfully  and  diligently  accord- 
ing to  them. ' '  t 

As  this  formula  of  confession  to  all  the  Lutheran  Symbolical 
Books  is  absolute  and  unqualified,  it  might  be  supposed  that  the 
Synodical  Conference  (^lissourians)  could  and  would  maintain 
perfect  ecclesiastical  and  doctrinal  harmony  with  other  Lutheran 
bodies  Avhich  likewise  make  unqualified  subscription  to  the  same 
Confessions.  But  such  is  not  the  case.  In  reality  they  have 
been  and  still  are  in  most  violent  disagreement  with  such,  which 
condition  arises  from  the  fact  that  they  do  not  interpret  the 
Confessions  as  others  do.  Among  "the  false  doctrines"  which 
they  charge  against  the  General  Council  are  the  following : 

1.  The  exchange  of  pulpits  with  non-Lutheran  ministers. 

2.  Open  Communion,  that  is,  the  admission  of  non-Lutherans 
to  the  Lord's  Table. 

3.  The  toleration  of  secret  or  unchurchly  societies,  such  as 
Free  ^Masons,  Odd  Fellows,  etc. 

4.  Chiliasm,  Sjmergism  and  the  toleration  of  Calvinistic  views 
of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

5.  Church  government,  in  that  the  General  Council  is  inter- 
preted as  holding  that  synodical  resolutions  are  hincling  on  the 
congregation,  while  the  Missourians  maintain  that  such  resolu- 
tions are  only  advisory. 

Against  the  large  independent  German  Iowa  Synod,  which 
"accepts  unreservedly  all  the  Lutheran  Symbols  as  they  have 
been  laid  down  in  the  Book  of  Concord  of  1580,"  J  the  ]\Iissouri- 
ans  charge  as  "false  doctrines,"  "the  open  questions,"  that  is,  ac- 
cording to  the  definiti(m  of  the  lowans,  "questions  about  which 
there  can  be  different  understanding  without  church  fellowship 
being  thereby  destroyed,  as  a  question  about  which  in  the  con- 

*  Constitution.       t  Liturgy,  p.  240.       %  The  Lutheran  Cyclopedia,  p.  .503. 


614  THE    CONFESSIONS    IX    AMERICA. 

fessional  ivritings  of  our  Church,  no  symbolical  decisions  have  yet 
been  laid  down.  Wherefore  two  views  may  exist  together  in  our 
Church. ' '  *  The  IMissourians  deny  that  there  are  any  such 
questions  for  Lutherans,  and  point  to  Articles  A^II.  and  VIII. 
of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  to  the  Schmalkald  Articles, 
Part  III.,  Article  XII.,  and  declare:  ''In  her  confession  our 
Church  has  recorded  for  all  time  what  she  believes,  teaches  and 
confesses.  For  the  very  reason  that  no  controversy  may  arise 
concerning  the  question  what  our  Church  believes  and  confesses 
in  reference  to  certain  points,  or  that  such  controversy  may  at 
least  be  adjusted  without  difficulty.  Thus,  for  instance,  the 
Formula  of  Concord  in  its  second  part  expressly  declares  as  its 
object  that  in  setting  forth  its  views  'a  public  and  positive  testi- 
mony might  be  furnished,  not  only  to  those  who  are  now  living, 
but  also  to  posterity,  showing  what  the  unanimous  opinion  and 
judgment  of  our  churches  ivere,  and  perpetually  ought  to  be 
concerning  those  controverted  articles.'  "  f 

Among  the  open  questions,  according  to  the  lowans,  are  the 
following : 

1.  Chiliasm,  which  Missouri  rejects  in  its  subtle  as  well  as  in 
its  grosser  forms,  while  Iowa  holds  that  not  every  form  of 
Chiliasm  is  to  be  rejected. 

2.  Antichrist,  Missouri  affirming  that  the  Roman  Pontiff  is 
antichrist,  while  Iowa  holds  that  he  is  an  individual  yet  to 
come. 

3.  The  Church,  Missouri  holding  that  the  Church  is  invisible, 
while  Iowa  holds  that  the  Church  has  both  a  visible  and  an  in- 
visible side. 

4.  The  Ministry,  Missouri  maintaining  that  "the  holy  minis- 
try is  the  authority  conferred  by  God  through  the  congregation 
as  the  possessor  of  the  priesthood  and  of  all  ecclesiastical  author- 
ity, to  exercise  in  behalf /of  the  congregation  in  a  public  way 
the  rights  of  the  priesthood. ' '  $  "While  Iowa  declares :  ' '  The 
theory  of  transference,  according  to  which  individual  spiritual 
priests  transfer  to  one  from  their  midst  for  public  use  the 
rights  belonging  to  themselves,  is  to  be  treated  purely  as  a 
theological  problem"  § — an  open  question. 

5.  Subscription  to  the  Confessions  of  the  Church.  Missouri 


*  ErMcirung  des  Ministeriums,  1859. 
t  Controversy  on  Predestination,  p.  5 
t  Walther's  KircTie  u.  Ami.,  p.  354. 
§  21inutes,  1875,  p.  21. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA.  615 

maintaining  that  a  person  who  subscribes  to  the  Confessions 
unequivocally,  thereby  declares  his  acceptance  of  all  the  doc- 
trines contained  in  them,  while  Iowa  declares  that  the  doctrine 
to  be  of  binding  force  must  be  expressly  stated,  and  not  only  oc- 
casionally mentioned.  Hence  distinction  is  to  be  made  between 
the  doctrines  contained  in  the  Symbolical  Books. 

Such  are  the  principal  "false  doctrines"  alleged  by  the 
]\Iissourians  against  two  Lutheran  bodies,  which,  like  itself,  sub- 
scribe the  Confessions  without  any  expressed  reservation,  and 
without  distinction  between  form  and  substance.  They  may  all 
be  regarded  as  strictly  and  rigidly  confessional.  In  the  language 
emploA'ed  in  the  Lutheran  Church  in  Germany  three  generations 
ago,  they  can  be  properly  called  Symbolists.  But  they  stand 
apart  from  each  other  and  do  not  agree  as  to  the  teaching  of  the 
Confessions  which  they  subscribe.  And  yet  it  will  be  seen  that 
not  a  single  one  of  the  points  of  difference  touches  the  heart 
or  center  of  Lutheranism.  but  they  all  belong  to  its  periphery, 
and  cannot  be  shown  to  belong  to  the  essence  of  Christianity.  A 
Christian  must  be  regarded  as  a  Lutheran  who  holds  the  "follow- 
ing chief  doctrines  in  contradistinction  to  their  well-known  Cal- 
vinistic  and  other  theological  antitheses : 

That  salvation  has  its  source  in  the  paternal  love  of  God ;  that 
Jesus  Christ,  very  God  and  very  man,  is  the  center  of  the 
Evangelical  System,  and  died  for  the  whole  race  of  mankind; 
that  salvation  is  sincerely  offered  to  all  men  who  hear  the  Gospel ; 
that  the  .cause  of  the  condemnation  of  some  men  who  hear  the 
Gospel  is  their  own  voluntary  rejection  of  the  offer  of  salvation ; 
that  the  Word  of  God  and  the  sacraments  offer  grace  to  all 
alike,  and  actually  convey  grace  to  all  who  receive  them  with 
faith;  that  Christ  is  present  in  the  Eucharist;  that  original  sin 
is  truly  sin,  as  against  Pelagius  and  some  others;  that  justifica- 
tion is  \>j  grace  for  Christ's  sake  through  faith  alone,  as  against 
the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  on  this  subject;  that 
all  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  whether  Presbyterially  or  Episcopally 
ordained,  are  equal,  as  against  the  view^s  of  some  sacerdotically 
constituted  churches.  The  Christian  who  holds  those  doctrines 
as  they  are  fundamentally  and  principiantly  laid  down  in  the 
Augsburg  Confession  is  a  Lutheran,  and  is  entitled  to  be  re- 
garded as  a  Lutheran,  and  to  have  all  the  rights,  privileges  and 
immunities  of  a  Lutheran  conceded  to  him  according  to  the 
Peace  of  Augsburg,  the  great  IMagna  Charta  of  Lutheranism, 
even  though  he  do  not  hold  certain  circumferential  doctrines  and 


616  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA. 

certain  just  and  probable  inferences  just  as  Luther  and  INIelanch- 
thon  held  them,  and  may  not  accept  certain  explanations  of  Luth- 
eran doctrines  as  they  have  been  presented  in  the  Apology,  or  in 
the  Schmalkald  Articles  or  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  for  none 
of  these  three  is  at  this  time  or  has  ever  been  universally  accepted 
and  subscribed  by  the  entire  Lutheran  Church.  Moreover,  it  must 
be  remembered  that  each  of  these  belongs  to  a  specific  exigency 
and  that  it  necessarily  bears  the  marks  of  its  own  specific  time 
and  the  characteristics  of  a  particular  frame  of  mind,  "which 
sought  to  adopt  the  evangelical  conception  to  antagonisms  pe- 
culiar to  the  times.  Hence  they  cannot  be,  as  no  confession  can 
be,  considered  in  the  very  word  and  letter  as  fitted  to  impose  an 
obligation  for  all  times,  and  as  having  the  right  to  exclude  the 
Church  from  the  benefit  of  the  acquisition  of  theological  study 
and  Christian  experience  that  come  to  it  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration. Besides,  observation  has  shown  that  those  bodies  which 
accept  all  the  Lutheran  Confessions  and  profess  to  hold  and  to 
teach  them  without  qualification  are  exactly  those  which  stand 
apart  from  each  other  in  separate  organizations  and  impeach  the 
Lutheran  character  of  each  other  and  accuse  each  other  of  hold- 
ing false  doctrines,  so  that  they  will  neither  commune  together, 
nor  exchange  pulpits  with  each  other,  nor  even  hold  common 
prayer  with  each  other,  as  is  the  case  with  the  Missourians.  For 
instance,  the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio,  though  holding  all  the  Luth- 
eran Confessions  in  the  most  rigid  and  unqualified  sense,  never- 
theless refused  to  remain  with  the  Synodical  Conference  be- 
cause of  dissatisfaction  with  the  interpretation  put  upon  Article 
XL  of  the  Formula  of  Concord  by  the  said  Conference,  and  re- 
fused to  remain  in  the  General  Council,  which  it  helped  to  organ- 
ize at  Reading,  in  1866,  because  of  "the  four  points,"  which 
if  not  arising  directly  out  of  the  Confessions  subsequent  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession,  are  certainly  connected  with  the  spirit, 
which  they,  particularly  the  latest  one,  beget  and  foster. 

Hence  it  must  be  said  that  the  confessional  relations  of  the 
Lutheran  bodies  in  America  are  by  no  means  harmonious,  and 
the  greatest  discord  exists  between  those  bodies  of  Lutherans 
which  are  most  strictly  confessional.  Or  if  it  should  seem  harsh 
to  state  the  facts  about  the  Confessions  in  this  positive  form,  it 
is  at  least  absolutely  certain  that  the  unqualified  adoption  of  all 
the  Lutheran  Confessions  has  not  contributed  to  the  produc- 
tion of  an  irenic  spirit  among  Lutherans  in  America,  nor  to 
the  production  and  maintenance  of  organic  union.    For  the  full 


THE    CONFESSIOXS    IX    AMERICA.  617 

proof  of  these  facts  we  have  only  to  recall  the  separations  and 
secessions  that  have  occurred  from  time  to  time,  and  .to  cast  a 
look  at  the  controversial  Lutheran  literature  that  has  accumu- 
lated on  the  shelves  of  some  of  our  libraries.  It  stands  true  with- 
out the  possibility  of  successful  contradiction  that  the  Book  of 
Concord  has  not  been  an  instrument  of  concord  in  the  Lutheran 
Church  in  America.  At  the  outbreak  of  the  late  Civil  War 
some  thirty  Lutheran  synods,  extending  from  New  York  to  Texas, 
and  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Missouri  River,  were  harmoniously 
united  under  the  Augsburg  Confession  without  the  naming  of  the 
other  Confessions.  Every  synod  east  of  the  Ohio  River,  with  one 
or  too  insignificant  exceptions,  and  the  most  of  those  west  of  it, 
were  in  this  connection.  The  few  remaining  synods  that  sub- 
scribed the  entire  Book  of  Concord  and  accepted  its  articles  of 
faith  as  unconditionally  obligatory  were  then,  as  they  have  been 
continually  ever  since,  in  controversy  and  antagonism  with  each 
other.  In  the  main,  the  standpoint  sought  to  be  occupied  by  such 
synods  is  identical  with"  that  which  is  supposed  to  have  been 
occupied  by  the  authors  and  framers  of  the  Confessions.  In 
other  words  they  fight  the  battles  of  the  sixteenth  century  over 
again.* 

*  It  is  quite  different  in  Germany.  Says  Professor  Albert  Hauck, 
of  Leipzig:  "If  the  opponents  of  union  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth 
centuries  carried  the  day,  that  was  the  consequence  of  the  conditions:  The 
sharp  formulation  of  doctrine  against  those  of  opposing  -views  was  done 
amid  violent  controversies.  The  greatest  importance  would  be  ascribed  to 
the  production  of  such  work.  The  recent  past  has  belonged  to  the  friends 
of  union,  and  also  the  immediate  future  will  certainly  belong  to  them.  I 
do  not  mean  that  in  the  sense  that  the  union  is  expected  to  extend  to  those 
German  national  churches  which  have  not  accepted  it.  For  this  there  is 
no  occasion.  The  effort  would  awaken  the  most  violent  opposition,  and 
would  lead  to  new  separations.  But  it  seems  to  me  to  be  incontestable  that 
the  friends  of  union,  rather  than  its  enemies,  have  the  general  consent  on 
their  side.  That  is  evident  even  in  the  ranks  of  the  confessionalists.  No 
confessional  Lutheran  national  church  can  shut  itself  off  bluntly  against 
the  Reformed:  Almost  everywhere  the  so-called  guest-wise  admission  of  the 
Reformed  to  the  Holy  Communion  is  practiced.  And  where  this  is  not  the 
case,  it  is  not  because  the  congregations  take  offense  at  it,  but  because  it 
IS  contrary  to  the  conviction  of  the  pastor.  This  also  is  determined  by  gen- 
eral conditions.  Modern  intercourse  has  brought  the  adherents  of  the  differ- 
ent confessions  into  much  more  frequent  touch  than  was  formerly  the  case. 
It  cannot  be  otherwise  than  that  people  will  be  conscious  that  in  manv  points 
they  are  one.  There  is  also  the  additional  fact  that  the  antithesis  in  which 
Christianity  is  placed  to-day  lies  far  away  from  the  points  on  which  the 
Protestantism  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  diA-ided :  The  natural  conse- 
quence is  that  its  significance  will  be  estimated  differently  from  what  it 
was  formerly.  Finally,  the  work  of  theology— including  confessional  the- 
olog.y— has  led  to  the  result  that  nobody  regards  as  absolutelv  pertinent  the 
formulation  which  dogma  found  in  the  sixteenth  century.  Even  the  most 
pronounced  Lutheran  concedes  that  the  Lutheran  Confessions  do  not  express 
his  views  jn  the   same  sense   in   which   they   expressed   the   views   of   their 


618  '  THE    COXFESSIOXS    IN    AMERICA. 

5.     The  Predestination  Controversy. 

Nearly  forty  years  ago  the  Reverend  C.  F.  W.  Walther,  Pro- 
fessor of  Theology  in  the  Concordia  Theological  Seminary,  at  St. 
Louis,  Missouri,  a  man  as  orthodox  as  John  Gerhard  and  as  pious 
as  Philip  Jacob  Spener,  startled  the  Lutheran  theological  world 
by  an  extreme,  if  not  altogether  new,  int^pretation  of  the 
eleventh  article  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  Of  God's  Fore- 
knowledge and  Election.  For  the  purpose  of  exalting  the  glory 
and  the  majesty  of  the  grace  of  God  in  the  salvation  of  man  as 
over  against  modern  Pelagian  and  Synergistic  views,  he  de- 
clared that  Predestination  or  Election  is  the  cause  of  salvation. 
Under  controversy,  Dr.  Walther,  whose  views  have  become  the 
views  of  the  Missourians,  stated  the  case  thus :  "It  consists  sim- 
ply in  the  following  twofold  question  :  (1) .  Whether  God  from 
eternity,  before  the  foundatio7is  of  the  ivorld  were  laid,  out  of 
pure  mercy  and  only  for  the  sake  of  the  most  holy  merit  of  Christ, 
elected  and  ordained  the  chosen  children  of  God  to  salvation  and 
whatever  pertains  to  it,  consequently  also  to  faith,  repentance 
and  conversion ;  or  (2)  whether  in  his  election,  God  took  into 
consideration  anything  good  in  man,  namely,  the  foreseen  con- 
duct of  man,  the  foreseen  non-resistance,  and  the  foreseen  per- 
severing faith,  and  thus  elected  certain  persons  to  salvation  in 
consideration,  with  respect  to,  on  account  of,  or  in  consequence  of 
their  conduct,  their  non-resistance,  and  their  faith.  The  first  of 
these  questions  we  affirm,  while  our  opponents  deny  it;  but  the 
second  question  we  deny,  while  our  opponents  affirm  it."  * 

1.  In  the  long  controversy  Dr.  Walther  defended  his  position 
exclusively  from  the  Formula  of  Concord,  and  charged  that  his 
opponents  defended  their  position  from  the  private  writings  of 
the  Lutheran  theologians  subsequent  to  the  promulgation  of  the 
Formula  of  Concord. 

authors  and  their  contemporaries.  The  customary  distinction  between  the 
substance  and  the  form  of  the  Confession  is  nothing  else  than  conces- 
sion of  this  fact.  But  the  consequence  is  that  the  divisive  formula  is  judged 
differently  from  what  it  vras  formerly.  In  a  word:  Just  as  that  which  is 
common  to  the  two  confessions  has  gained  in  importance  for  the  general 
consciousness,  has  that  which  is  divisive  lost  in  importance.  Does  it  follow 
from  this  change  that  the  Lutheran  and  Eeformed  peculiarities,  which 
exist  even  apart  from  that  which  the  two  churches  teach  in  regard  to  the 
Holy  Supper,  etc.,  are  to  disappear  or  have  already  disappeared?  That  the 
latter  is  not  the  case,  even  where  the  union  obtains,  is  e\'ident  to  every  ob- 
server. And  who  would  really  desire  the  complete  disappearance  of  the  two 
types.  Such  a  desire  would  be  nothing  else  than  that  uniformity  which  was 
censured  by  Schleiermacher.  But  the  realization  of  such  a  desire,  as  things 
now  are,  is  impossible."  Bealencyclopddie,  Article  Union,  Jcirchliche. 
*  Controversy  on  Predestination,  p.  5. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA.  619 

2.  He  maintained  that  in  the  Formula  of  Concord,  the  doc- 
trine of  Predestination  is  applied  in  "a  stricter  sense,"  and  ''is 
understood  to  be  that  which  extends  only  to  the  children  of  God 
who  have  been  chosen  and  ordained  to  eternal  life  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world,"  while  his  opponents,  he  declares,  un- 
derstand Predestination  in  "a  ivider  sense"  as  "that  doctrine 
which  comprises  the  general  doctrine  of  the  way  of  salvation  for 
all  men  as  a  part,  even  as  the  first  or  chief  part  or  one  wTiich  is 
nothing  else  than  that  general  doctrine  of  the  way  of  salvation 
for  all  men." 

3.  Dr.  Walther  insisted  that  election  is  the  cause  of  salva- 
tion, and  in  support  of  his  proposition  he  quoted  the  Formula  of 
Concord  emphatically^  thus  :  ' '  The  eternal  election  of  God  not 

ONLY  foresees  AND  FOREKNOWS  THE  SALVATION  OF  THE  ELECT,  BUT 
THROUGH  His  gracious  WILL  AND  GOOD  PLEASURE  IN  ChRIST  JeSUS, 
IS  ALSO  A  CAUSE  WHICH  PROCURES,  WORKS,  AIDS,  AND  PROMOTES 
OUR  SALVATION  AND  WHATEVER  PERTAINS  TO  IT."    The  pOsition  of 

his  opponents  he  declares  "to  be  nothing  more  than  the  follow- 
ing :  In  the  first  place,  the  foreknowledge  of  God  that  certain  per- 
sons will  receive  the  Gospel  in  true  faith  unto  the  end ;  and  sec- 
ondly, the  decree  that  he  will  actually  save  the  persons  that  thus 
persevere  in  faith." 

4.  Dr.  Walther  also  stated  in  his  own  words  as  the  proper 
meaning  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  that  Predestination  is  "a 
CAUSE  of  the  salvation  of  the  Elect,"  and  is  also  "a  cause  of 
faith,"  and  that  his  opponents  regard  faith  as  "a  cause  of  Pre- 
destination." 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  two  views  are  directly  antagonistic 
the  one  to  the  other.  What  one  party  regards  as  a  cause,  the 
other  party  regards  as  an  effect,  and  vice  versa.  Dr.  Walther  and 
the  I\Iissourians  charge  that  their  opponents  are  "not  Luth- 
eran," are  "Pelagian:"  and  these  charge  that  Dr.  Walther  and 
the  ^Missourians  are  "  Calvinistic ; "  and  in  support  of  their  alle- 
gation quote  from  the  official  declarations  of  the  Missourians 
passages  like  the  following:  "The  difference  between  the  Cal- 
vinistic and  Lutheran  doctrines  of  Predestination  is  this:  The 
Lutherans  do  not  wish  to  explain  how  it  comes  about  that  it  all 
depends  on  the  mercy  of  God  that  in  the  case  of  some  opposition 
and  death  are  removed,  but  that  others  remain  lost.  The  Luth- 
erans dismiss  this  question,  but.  the  Calvinists  answer  it, ' '  etc., 
that  is,  the  iMissourians  affirm  the  single  or  Augustinian  absolute 
Predestination,  while  the  Calvinists  affirm  the  double  absolute 


620  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA. 

Predestination.    Neither  the  Missourians  nor  the  Calvinists  rec- 
ognize the  intuitu  fidei  or  fide  praevisa. 

The  position  of  the  chief  opponents  of  Missouri  on  Free-will, 
Conversion  and  Predestination  were  presented  by  Professor 
Gr.  Fritschel,  of  the  German  Iowa  Synod,  as  follows : 

1.  "Over  against  all  these  predestinarian  inclinations  must 
be  strongly  emphasized  the  fact  of  the  personal  self-determina- 
tion of  man  for  or  against  salvation." 

2.  "That  of  two  men  who  hear  the  Gospel,  opposition  and 
death  are  removed  in  the  case  of  one  and  not  in  the  case  of  the 
other  .  .  .  has  its  ground  in  the  free  self-determination  of  the 
man,  although  this  is  possible  only  by  grace." 

3.  "That  of  two  men,  to  whom  the  Gospel  is  preached,  the  one 
comes  to  faith,  the  other  does  not,  according  to  God's  Word  is 
due  solely  and  alone  to  the  decision  of  the  man." 

4.  "Whether  a  man  shall  be  saved  or  lost  rests  in  its  final 
ground  on  the  free  self-determination  of  man  for  or  against 
grace. ' ' 

5.  "It  is  certain  that  since  God  appoints  only  a  number  of 
men  to  eternal  life,  the  ground  of  this  lies  either  in  the  abso- 
lute election  of  God,  who  now  but  once  only  presents  man  with 
faith,  or  in  the  decision  of  man  foreseen  by  God." 

6.  "The  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  Dogmaticians,  that  God  has 
elected  those  whose  faith  He  foresaw,  is  not  Pelagian,  but  is  a 
sound  doctrine  in  full  accord  with  the  Word  of  God. ' '  * 

It  needs  no  special  intellectual  acumen  to  discover  that  these 
two  sets  of  theses  are  fundamentally  and  irreconcilably  antagon- 
istic to  each  other.  It  is  not  possible  to  harmonize  Professor 
Fritschel 's  "personal  self-determination  of  man"  and  his  "final 
ground, "  "  foreseen  faith, ' '  with  the  ' '  predestination  is  the  cause 
of  salvation,"  "without  foreseen  faith,"  "election  is  particular," 
of  Dr.  Walther  and  the  Missourians.  And  yet,  each  party  to  the 
dispute  professes  unqualified  acceptance  of  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord, and  finds  in  it  support  for  its  own  doctrine  of  Predestina- 
tion. And  this  controversy  is  not  all  of  the  past.  Occasionally 
there  have  been  truces,  and  colloquies  have  been  held  for  the 
purpose  of  reaching  an  understanding,  but  the  only  understand- 
ing reached  thus  far  is  that  each  party  has  decided  to  stand  the 
more  firmly  by  its  position.  In  a  series  of  "free  conferences," 
1903-1907,   between   the  IMissourians  on   the   one  side,   and  the 

*  Theologische  Monatshefte,  5  passim. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA.  621 

lowans  and  the  Ohioans  on  the  other  side,  the  subjects  of  Con- 
version and  Predestination  were  earnestly  debated.  The  chief 
question  at  issue  was:  "Why  are  some  men,  rathe?'  than  others, 
converted  and  saved,  since  the  grace  of  God  in  Christ  is  general, 
and  since  all  men  are  alike  in  the  same  condition  of  depravity?" 
Or,  "Cur  alii  prae  aliis?"  The  Missourians  found  the  answer 
to  this  question  solely  and  alone  in  God  and  in  his  grace  and  in 
this:  "It  originates  primarily  from  the  eternal  ordination  of 
God  who  shall  be  saved."  The  other  party  held  that  the  cause 
is  the  free  self-determination  of  man,  though  this  is  first  rendered 
possible  only  by  grace.  And  so  they  separated,  agreeing  to  dis- 
agree. But  all  these  bodies  agree  essentially  in  reproducing  and 
teaching  in  their  schools  the  dogmatic  theology  of  the  seventeenth 
century.  This  is  seen  especially  in  the  republication  by  Dr.  Wal- 
ther  of  Baler's  Compendium  Theologiac  Positivae  (1685)  greatly 
augmented  by  quotations  from  the  other  dogmaticians,  but  with- 
out any  recognition  of  modern  Lutheran  theology,  except  in  anti- 
thesis. 

6.     Scandinavian  Lutheran  Synods. 

Under  this  heading  we  register  Lutherans  that  have  emigrated 
from  Scandinavian  countries  and  settled  in  America  or  those 
that  have  been  born  here  of  Swedish,  or  Danish,  or  Norwegian 
extraction,  and  affiliate  with  churches  known  as  Scandinavian 
Lutheran  even  though  in  many  of  these  churches  the  English 
language  is  partly  or  exclusively  used.  The  adjective  ' '  Scandina- 
vian" can  here  then  under  circmnstances  have  the  same  import 
as  ' '  Dutch  "  in  "  Reformed  Dutch  "  or  "  Dutch  Reformed. ' '  The 
Scandinavian  Lutherans  have,  in  matters  confessional,  generally 
followed  the  traditions  of  northern  Europe. 

The  Swedish  Augustana  Synod  belongs  to  the  General  Coun- 
cil and  consequently  subscribes  to  the  entire  Book  of  Concord, 
Avhich  was  not  a  symbolical  book  of  the  Swedish  Church  when 
the  early  Swedes  settled  on  the  Delaware. 

The  United  Norwegian  Lutheran  Church,  numbering  more 
than  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  communicants,  accepts 
only  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  Luther's  Small  Catechism. 
There  are  a  few  ministers  in  this  body  who  have  advocated  sub- 
scription to  the  Book  of  Concord.  But  the  advocation  has  met 
nothing  but  discouragement,  and  was  started  by  men  who  had 
received  some  theological  schooling  in  institutions  belonging  to 
the  Joint  Synod  of  Ohio  (German),  or  to  " I\Iissouri, "  or  to  the 


622  THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA. 

General  Council.  The  Hauges  Synod  and  the  Free  Church, 
each  with  about  forty  thousand  communicants,  accept  only  two 
post-Reformation  symbols,  the  Augsburg  Confession  and  the 
Small  Catechism.  A  portion  of  the  Norwegians  belong  to  what 
is  known  as  ' '  The  Norwegian  Synod, ' '  at  one  time  affiliated  with 
the  Synodical  Conference,  or  Missouri,  to  which  their  clergy  still 
have  strong  leanings.  But  this  Synod  also  is  as  yet  content  in 
subscribing  only  to  the  Small  Catechism  and  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession. The  early  dependence  of  this  Synod  on  Missouri  received 
a  classic  expression  in  its  dealing  with  the  late  Bishop  F.  W, 
Bugge,  in  1861.  It  called  Bugge,  who  had  just  graduated  from 
the  University  of  Christiania,  in  Norway,  to  a  professorship  of 
theology  in  our  country.  It  conditioned  the  call,  however,  by  the 
demand  that  he  should  further  qualify  himself  by  studying  two 
years  at  an  orthodox  school  of  theology  in  our  country,  before  en- 
tering upon  his  duties  as  theological  professor.  Bugge,  who  a  few 
years  later  (1869)  was  appointed  professor  of  theology  in  the 
LTniversity  of  Christiania  and  has  done  more  than  any  other 
Norwegian  University  professor  for  promoting  a  scientific  exe- 
getical  study  of  the  New  Testament — did  not  accept.  Thus, 
almost  fifty  years  ago  did  Missouri  teach  the  immigrants  to  ques- 
tion the  orthodoxy  of  one  of  the  most  orthodox  universities  in 
Europe.  Two  other  synods  may  be  mentioned,  the  Eielsen  and 
the  Icelandic.  These,  too,  subscribe  only  to  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession and  the  Catechism. 

The  Danish  Lutherans  have  two  synods,  "The  Danish  Evan- 
gelical Lutheran  Church  in  America"  and  "The  Danish  United 
Lutheran  Church, ' '  each  with  about  ten  or  eleven  thousand  com- 
municants. Both  adhere  to  the  symbols  of  the  Church  of  Den- 
mark, thus  agreeing  with  the  Norwegian  Synods. 

These  Scandinavian  Lutherans  all  preserve  a  good  reputation 
for  orthodoxy  and  piety.  They  have  excellent  colleges  and  theo- 
logical seminaries,  and  have  had  the  wisdom  not  to  scout  Euro- 
pean university  training,  many  of  their  ministers  and  professors 
being  graduates  of  foreign  universities.  They  are  thus  made 
secure  against  the  bane  of  monolingualism.  Of  controversies 
they  have  had  a  full  share,  but  they  have  not  forgotten  the  im- 
portance of  edification  or  the  value  of  the  layman  in  building  the 
spiritual  temple  of  the  living  God.  The  discussion  of  the  tech- 
nicalities of  the  Book  of  Concord  as  well  as  of  the  problems  of 
Confessional  subscription  has  been  subordinate  to  questions  of 
another  order. 


THE    CONFESSIONS    IN    AMERICA,  62S 

7.     The  United  Synod  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in 

the  South. 
This  body,  having  about  fifty  thousand  members,  was  or- 
ganized at  Roanoke,  Virginia,  in  the  year  1886.  It  accepts  as 
its  doctrinal  basis  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  the  three  ecumenical  creeds,  the  unaltered  Augs- 
burg Confession  and  the  other  Symbolical  Books  of  the  Evangel- 
ical Lutheran  Church,  "as  they  are  set  forth,  defined  and  pub- 
lished in  the  Christian  Book  of  Concord,  or  the  Symbolical 
Books  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church,  published  in  1580, 
as  true  and  scriptural  developments  of  the  doctrines  taught  in 
the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  in  the  perfect  harmony  of  one 
and  the  same  pure,  scriptural  faith."  This  synod  is  much  less 
confessionalistic  than  others  that  accept  the  same  Book  of  Con- 
cord. It  has  been  very  pacific,  and  tries  to  act  as  a  peacemaker 
between  other  Lutheran  Synods  that  have  not  yet  come  to  see  eye 
to  eye. 


INDEX 


Absolution. 

in   Augsburg   confession,    113,    120. 
in  Apology,  267. 
Achtliederbuch,    first    German    hymn- 
book,  8. 
Adiaphora,   322,   325,   392-394. 

as  viewed  by  J.  Andreae,  408. 
Agrieola,  Johann,  313. 
Alber,  Erasmus,  325. 
Albert,  count  of  Mansfeld,  122. 
Altenburg  colloquy,  365,  371. 
Amsdorf,  Nicholas  von,  240,  313,  325. 
on  good  works,  395. 
"Public     confession     of     the     pure 
doctrine  of  the  gospel, ' '  354. 
Amsterdam  church  order,  601. 
Anabaptists,  51,  109,  111,  116,  134. 
Andreae,  Jacob,  361,  432-436. 
and  Lutheran  jiacification,  401  if. 
and  revision  of  Torgau  book,  470  ff. 
censured    bv    Prussian    theologians, 

463. 
character   as   judged    bv    Selneecer, 

433. 
* '  Christian   sermons, ' '   405. 
Christology  of,  434-436. 
epitome  of  Torgau  book,  469. 
in  Torgau  convention,  422  ff. 
letter    to    Heshuss    and    Wigand    on 

Torgau  convention,  429. 
on  free-will,  435. 

on   the    method   of   subscription    to 
Concord  fornuila,  494. 
Anhalt  theologians. 

on    the    teachings    of    Melanchton, 

456. 
on  Torgau  book,  456-457. 
Ansbach  theologians  on  Torgau  book. 

457. 
Anthropological   controversy,    333-371. 
Antichrist,  275,  614. 
Anti-confessionalists,   578-583. 
Antinomian  controversy,  312. 
Anton,  J.  N.,  311. 
Apologia.     Oder     Verantwortvmg     des 

Concordien   Buchs,   509-511. 
Apology  of  Augsburg  confession,  260- 
268. 
analysis  of,   266-268. 
first'  form    of,    261-262. 
Melanchthon's  greatest  achievement 

next  to  the  confession,  266. 
offered  to  Emperor,  262. 


Editions: 

Editio  princeps.  214,  264. 
Eev.  Latin  edition  of  1531,  265. 
Archbishop  of  Saltzburg  on  reconcilia- 
tion, 141. 
Ariaus  on  Christ,  105. 
Arndt,  Johann,  536. 
Arnold,  Gottfried. 

on  the  subscription  to  the  Concord 
formula,  495  note. 
Augsburg,    Bishop    of,    on    reconcilia- 
tion, 141. 
Augsburg  confession,  46  ff. 

agreement  between  Protestants,  81. 

anaylsis  of,  104-122. 

articles  of  faith,  reason  for  in- 
cluding, 54. 

authorship  of,  68-73. 

characteristics  of,  92-103. 

conciliatory  spirit  of,  191. 

criticism  by  John  Eck,   146. 

effect  of  reading  of,  at  Augsburg 
diet,  89. 

finished  and  signed,  82. 

first  draft  sent  to  Luther,  57-58. 

first  ofiicial  declaration  on,  149-151. 

growing  importance  as  a  symbol, 
289  ff. 

in  America.  See  Lutheran  symbols 
in   America. 

Luther's  relation  to,  194-208. 

materials  used,   61-73. 

Melanchthon  chosen  as  framer  of, 
49. 

Melanchthon 's  apology  of,  192. 

Melanchthon's  Editio  princeps 
compared  with  the  ' '  Invariata, ' ' 
215-217. 

not  a  system  of  theology,  99. 

not  in  existence  as  delivered  to  Em- 
peror,  211. 

not  regarded  as  a  symbolical  writ- 
ing in  the  beginning,  276  ff. 

oldest  redaction  of,  50,  55-58. 

original  manuscripts,  fate  of,  209. 

preface  of,  50-53. 

read  and  delivered,  83-89. 

shortcomings  of.  98. 

signatures  of,   122. 

signed  at  Naumburg  diet  of  1561, 
299. 

translated  and  forwarded  to  for- 
eign potentates,   87. 

Editions   by   Melanchthon.    209-233. 


*The  Index  was  iirepared  l>y  Mr.  Juul  Dieserud,  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

40  (625) 


626 


INDEX. 


Editio    princeps   of    1531    (Latin 

and  German),  212-217. 
(German     version     endorsed     by 

Naumburg  diet,  296.) 
Editio    octavae    formae   of    1531, 

217-218. 
(endorsed     bv     Naumburg     diet, 

296-298.) 
Confessio    Augustana    variata    of 

1540,  224-226. 
(endorsed  by  Naumburg  diet,  302- 

304.) 
Latin  variata  of  1541-42,  230. 
German  variata  of  1533,  219-220. 
German  etlitions  of  1540,  221. 
Octavo  edition  (German)  of  1550, 

222. 
Quarto  edition  (German)  of  1555, 

Octavo  edition  (German)  of  1556, 

223. 
Quarto  edition  (German)  of  1558, 
223. 
Edition    by   Prof.    Tschacliert    (the 

"Invariata"),   105,   210. 
Textus  reeeptus.  210,  224,  523. 
Augsburg   confession.     See   also   Con- 
fessio   Saxonica. 
Apology  of.     See  Apology  of  Augs- 
burg confession. 
Augsburg,  Diet  of  1530,  24  ff. 
opening  of,  76-77. 
reconciliation  efforts,   138-193. 
remonstrances       against      Lutheran 

concessions,  174-182. 
Imperial  decree  of.  See  Imperial  de- 
cree of  Augsb.  diet. 
Augsburg,  diet  of  1547,  320. 
Augsburg  interim,  320-323. 
Augsburg  religious  peace  of  1555,  249- 

254,  289. 
August,  elector  of  Saxony. 
and  Naumburg  diet,  292. 
and  pacification  efforts,  414  ff. 
and    subscription    to    the    Book    of 

Concord,  528. 
and   subscription   to   Concord   form- 
ula,  491   ff. 
communication  to  H.  von  Bernstein, 
etc.,    on    a    common    corpus    doc- 
trinae,  418. 
letter  to  Elector  of  Brandenburg  on 
Torgau  book,  473. 
Aurifaber,  John,  311. 


B 
Baden    theologians    on    Torgau    book, 

453. 
Bahrdt,  C.  F.,  on  Rationalism,  569. 
Baptism. 

as  viewed  by  Luther,  386. 

in  Augsburg  confession,  .^6,  111. 


in  Catholic  confutation,  134. 
Baumgarten,  S.  J. 

' '  Evangelische  Glaubenslehre, ' '  564. 
Baumgartner,    Hieronymus,   on   recon- 
ciliation efforts  at  Augsburg,  180- 
181. 
Bengel,  J.  A.,  on  the  symbolical  books, 

556. 
Bergen   conferences   on   Torgau  book, 
470  ff. 
report  of  second  meeting,   474-477. 
Bergic  book.     See  Concord  formula. 
Besserer,  Bernhard,  190  note. 
Bezold,    Friedrich    von,    on    Augsburg 

confession,   94. 
Bible,  editions  of,  2. 
Bidembach,  Balthasar,  and  Maulbronn 

fornuila,  416. 
Binder,     Christopher,     and     Strigel's 

Declaration  on  free-will,  361. 
Bindseil,  H.   E.,  on  Confessio  Augus- 
tana variata  of   1540,  224-226. 
Bishop  of  Augsburg  on  reconciliation, 

141. 
Bishops '    power.      See    Ecclesiastical 

power. 
Bologna,  League  of,  25  note. 
Book  of  Concord,  255,  519  ff. 

adoption     of     Textus     reeeptus     of 

Augsb.  confession,  224,  523. 
and  the  Synodical  conference,  613. 
contents  of,  521-525. 
in  America,  617. 
subscription  to  the,  527-530. 
Editions : 

Editio  princeps  of  1580,  519. 
Latin  edition  of  1580,  525. 
German-Latin     edition    of     1582, 

526. 
Latin  edition  of  1602,  527. 
Both   species  of  the  Sacrament.     See 

Lord's  Supper. 
Brandenburg-Niirnberg  order,  286. 
Brandenburg  order,  309. 
Brandenburg    theologians    on    Torgau 

book,  460. 
Braun,  Gottfried,  on  confessional  sub- 
scription, 593-596. 
Bremen,     Acceptance     of     Calvinistic 

doctrine,  329. 
Brenz,  John. 

"Apology,"  362. 
on  adiaphora,  393. 
on  authorship  of  Augsb.  confession, 

72. 
on  the  two  natures  of  Christ,  382. 
Bretschneider,  K.  G.,  and  the  symbol- 
ical books,  569,  579,  582. 
Briick,  Gregorius,  170,  173. 

answer  to  Catholic  princes,  142. 
on  Protestant  preaching,   75. 
Brunswick  church  order  of  1569,  401. 
Brunswick  theologians. 


INDEX. 


627 


and  the  Book  of  Concord,  530. 

on  Torgau  book,  458. 
Buddeus,  J.  F. 

' '  Institutio        theologiae        dogma- 
ticae, "  555. 
Bugenhagen,   Johaun. 

on  resistance  of  the  Emperor,  240. 

ordination  certificate  issued  by  him 
and  Forster,  285. 
Bugge,  F.  W.,  622. 


Calinich,  Hermann. 

Comparison   of   Augustana  and   the 

Schwabach  articles,  65-66. 
on  Naumburg  diet,  295. 
on  transubstantiation  in  Aiigsb.  con- 
fession, 112. 
Calixtus,  Georg,  and  syncretism,  543. 
Calovius,  Abraham, 
and  syncretism,  543. 
' '  Svstema  locorum  theologicorum, ' ' 
541. 
Calvinism,  329-330. 

and  predestination  controversy,  619- 

620. 
in  Concord  formula,  487. 
See  also  Crypto-Calvinism. 
Calvinistic  view  of  the  sacrament  not 

endorsed  by  Naumburg  diet,  302. 
Calvinists    and    Augsburg    confession, 

291. 
Camerarius,  Joachim. 

on  authorship  of  Augsb.  confession, 
72. 
C'ampeggius,   Cardinal,   83,   124-125. 
Carpo\-ius,  Jacob. 

' '  Theologia     revelata     dogmatica, ' ' 
564. 
Catechisms,   Luther 's. 

not    given    early    rank    as    symbols, 

288. 
See  also  Luther,  Martin,  Works,  Two 
catechisms. 
Catholic  committee. 

reply  to  Chancellor  Briick,  142-143. 
Catholic  confutation,  123-137. 
character  of,  132. 
fifth    form    accepted    by    Emperor, 

129. 
first    form    delivered    to    Emperor, 

128,  130,   131. 
prepared    by    Eck,    128. 
summary  of,  133-137. 
title  of  1st  edition,  132. 
Charles  V. 

and  Augsburg  diet,  76  ff. 
Augsburg     confession     read    before 

Emperor,   86-87. 
character  of,  123. 

diplomatic    efforts    to    effect    recon- 
ciliation at  Augsburg  diet,  168. 


opinion  on  articles  of  faith  of  Augs- 
burg confession,  90. 
refusal  to  hear  confession  read  be- 
fore large  assembly,  84. 
Chemnitz,  Martin,  436-441. 

and   revision   of   Torgau   book,   470 

ff. 
and  the  Swabian  concordia,  412. 
letter  to   Heshuss   on  Torgau  book, 

425-429. 
on  changes  in  Torgau  book,  479. 
on  free-will,  438. 
Works : 

An  examination  of  the  Council  of 

Trent,  437. 
De  duabus  naturis  in  Christo,  383, 
437. 
Chiliasm,  611,  613,  614. 
Chiliasts  on  the  reign  of  Christ,  116. 
Christ,  two  natures  of,  106,  133. 
as  viewed  by  Andreae,  409-410. 
as  viewed  by  Chytraeus,  448. 
as  viewed  by  Selneccer,  445. 
See  also   Christological  controversy, 
372  ff. 
Christ,  ubiquity  of,  305,  382. 
as  viewed  by  Baumgarten,  565. 
as,  viewed  by  Museulus,  451. 
at   Quedlinburg  colloquy,  530. 
in  Concord  formula,  483,  516. 
See  also  Lord's  Supper. 
Christlieb    and    Schian    on    the    Luth- 
eran  preachers    of    17th    century, 
534. 
Christological   controversy,    372-385. 
Christology. 

of  Anhalt  theologians,  457. 
of   Calixtus,  544. 
of  Maulbronn  formula,  416. 
of  Schleiermacher,  573. 
Saxon,  385. 
Swabian,  385. 
Christopher,   duke   of   Wiirtemberg   at 

second  Augsburg  diet,  250. 
Church,   109-110,   134,  614. 
Church,  Ministry  of.     See  Ministry  of 

the  Church. 
Church  orders. 

and  Augsb.  confession,  287. 
and  the  confessions,  307. 
Chytraeus,  David,  445-450. 

on  changes  in  Torgau  book,  479. 
on  free-will,  344. 
Works : 

Catechesis,  446. 

History  of  the  Augsburg  confes- 
sion, 446. 
Orationes  et  epistolae,  446. 
Civil  affairs,  115,  135. 
Coburg,    Luther's    sojourn    at,    during 

Augsb.   diet,  37-39. 
Cochlaeus    on    justification    by    faith, 
149  note. 


628 


INDEX. 


Coelestin,  Georg. 

on  meeting   of   Evangelical   princes 

and   estates   June    21,    at   Augsb. 

diet,  80. 

on    signing    of    Augsb.    confession, 

82. 

Collegium    philobiblicum    in    Leipzig, 

554. 
Colloquies,  Keligious,   245-249. 
Cologne  order,  287. 
Committee  of  six,  170-174. 

Ans^ve^   of   Protestants   to   Catholic 
proposal,  172. 
Committee  of  fourteen,  145-169. 
censured  by  Niirnberg  Senate,  174- 

177. 
censured  by  Spengler,  178. 
censured  by  Seller,  177. 
comment     by     Rotermund     on     its 

transactions,  165. 
declaration    by    Lutheran    members, 
149-150. 
Committee  of  sixteen. 

on  reconciliation,  140-145. 
Concord,  Book  of.     *SV"("  Book  of  Con- 
cord. 
Concord  formula,  469-518. 

and  Lutherans  in  America,  507,  613, 

614,  616,  618,  623. 
and  Textus  receptus  of  Augsb.  con- 
fession, 211  note. 
Apology  of,  by  Kirchner,  Selneccer 

and  Chenmiitz,  509-511. 
as  viewed  by  Kawerau,  484. 
as  viewed  by  Kurtz,  485. 
as  viewed  by  Mosheim,  512. 
as  viewed  by  Miiller,  485. 
as  viewed  by  Planck,  514. 
comparison  with  Torgau  book,  480- 

485. 
effect  of  subscription  to,  505-518. 
has  done  more  harm  than  good,  518. 
Lutherish     rather     than     Lutheran, 

484. 
publications  attacking  it,  508-509. 
subscription  to  the,  491-518. 
See  also  Book  of  Concord. 
Confederations-notel    of    Rotach    con- 
vention, 19. 
Confessio  Saxonica,  248. 
Confessio  Tetrapolitana,  236,  243. 
Confession,  154,  160,  175-176. 

in  Augsburg  confession,  113,  120. 

in  Catholic  confutation,  134,  136. 

Confession  and  opinion  on  free-will  by 

Wittenberg  theologians,  368. 
Confessional    subscription,    586,    587, 
590,  593-596. 
See  alftn  Lutheran  symbols. 
Confessionalists,  578-583. 
Confessions,  Lutheran. 

See  Lutheran  confessions. 
Confutation  book  of  Flacianists,  300. 


Confutation   book   of   John   Frederick 
the  second,  328. 

Consensus  repetitus  fidei  vere  Luther- 
anae,   .544-545. 

Consistorial  order  of  Wittenberg,  286. 

Conversion,  618-621. 

as  viewed  by  Strigel,  367. 
See  also   Free-will,  Justification  by 
faith,  Predestination. 

Corpora  doctrinae,  314-320. 

Corpus  Brandenburgicum,  318. 

Corpus  •  doctrinae    christianae,   ed.    by 
Melanchthon,    218,    314-316,    402, 
404,  421. 
defended   by   the   Synod  of   Pomer- 
ania,  455. 

Corpus     doctrinae,     Hohenlohe.       See 
Hohenlohe  corpus  doctrinae. 

Corpus    doctrinae    Thuringicum,    218, 
317. 

Corpus  Julium,  218,  319. 

Corpus  misnicum.   See  Corjjus  doctrinae 
christianae. 

Corpus  of  the  city  of  Brunswick,  316. 

Corpus  Philijjpieum.     See  Corpus  doc- 
trinae christianae. 

Corpus  Pomeranicum,  221,  316. 

Corpus  Prutenicum,  317. 

Corpus  Thuringicum.    See  Corpus  doc- 
trinae Thuringicum. 

Corpus  Wilhelminum,   318. 

Coswig  articles,  346. 

Crypto-Calvinism,   305,    329. 
driven  from  AVittenberg,  418. 

Cujus  regio  ejus  religio,  principle  of, 
252. 

Curaeus,  Joachim. 

' '  Exegesis  persjjicua, ' '  330. 


D 

Danish  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church 
in  America,  622. 

Danish  United  Lutheran  Church,  622. 

Demonstratio  manifesti  mendacii,  by 
Pfeffinger,  354. 

Denmark  and  the  Lutheran  symbols, 
597,   599. 

Descartes,  Rene,  558. 

Determinism.  See  Free-will,  Predesti- 
nation. 

Documents  against  Luther  handed  to 
Emperor  with  Catholic  confuta- 
tion, 129. 

Donatists,  110. 

Dorner  on  the  two  natures  of  Christ, 
385. 

Dresden  consensus  of  1571,  330. 


Ecclesiastical  orders,  114,  134. 
Ecclesiastical  power,  161,  273. 


INDEX. 


629 


in  Augsburg  confession.  121. 
in  Catholic  confutation,  137. 
Niirnberg  Senate  on,  176. 
Ecclesiastical  reservation,  253. 
Ecclesiastical  rites,  115,  134. 
Ecclesiastical   union,   575-578. 
Eck,  Johann,  170. 

authorship  of  Catholic   confutation, 

128. 
"Four  hundred  and  four  articles," 

41-42. 
opinion    on   the   articles   of   Augsb. 
confession,    146. 
Eielsen  synod,  622. 
Eisenach  synod. 

on.  Good  works,  396. 
Eitzen,    Paiil    von,    and    the    Concord 

formula,  501. 
Elector  of  Saxony.     See  John,  elector 

of  Saxony. 
Erasmus  on  free-will,  346  note. 
Erfurt  book,  509-511. 
Ernest,  duke  of  Brunswick,  122. 
Ernesti,  J.  A.,  563. 
Essav  An,  in  Forstemann  's  Urkunden- 

buch,  28-35. 
Eucharist.    See  Lord 's  Supper. 
Eunomians  on  Christ,  106. 
Evjen,  J.  O.,  on  the  Book  of  Concord 

as  a  symbol,  592  note. 
Exchange    of   pulpit    with    sectarians, 

611. 
Exegesis,  532. 
Exegesis    perspicua,    by    J.    Curaeus, 

330. 
Exegetical      studies      introduced      at 
Saxon   universities,   552. 


Fabri,    Johann,    on    contradictions    in 

Luther's  writings,  127. 
Fasts,  Niirnberg  Senate  on,  176. 
Fasts.  See  also  bleats. 
Fikencher  on   Melanchthon  's  progress 
with   Augsb.   confession,   58   note. 
Fischer's  ordination  certificate,  issued 

by  Luther,  284. 
Flacianism,    324,    327. 
and  free-will,  345  ff. 
and  predestination,  357. 
expelled  from  Jena,  418. 
Flacianists. 

at  Xaumburg  diet  of  1561,  300-301. 
their  Confutation  book  of  1559,  300. 
Flaeius,  Matthias,  320,  323. 

controversy  ^-ith  G.  Major  on  good 

works,  395. 
discrediting  Latin  variata  of   1540, 

230. 
doctrine   of   free-will,   345. 
on  adiaphora,  325,  393. 


on  free-will,  in  Weimar  disputation, 

359  ff. 
refutation     of    Pfeffinger  's    propo- 
sitions on  free-will,  355. 
Formula  of  Concord.   See  Concord  for- 
mula. 
Formula    of    pacification   of    Duke    of 

Mecklenburg,  347. 
Formulae   of    subscription.      See   Sub- 
scription formulae. 
Forstemann,    K.    E.,    on    Torgau    ar- 
ticles, 30-31. 
Francis,  duke  of  Brunswick,  122. 
Frank,  F.  H.  E. 

on  the  Lutheran  symbols,   589. 
on  the  •Osiandrian  theory,  378. 
Frankfort  diet  of  1558,  400. 
Frankfort  recess,  328. 
Frederick,   elector   of   the   Palatinate, 
and  the  Diet  of  Naumburg,  293 
ff. 
Frederick   William,    king    of   Prussia, 

and  ecclesiastical  imion,  576. 
Free  Church,  Norwegian,  622. 
Free-will,  312,  351-371. 
and  Flacianism,  345  ff. 
and  Predestination  controversy,  620. 
as  taught  by  Andreae,  407,  435. 
as  taught  by  Chemnitz,  438. 
as    taught    by    Chvtraeus,   344,    446- 

448. 
as  taught  by  Luther,  333-338. 
as  taught  by  Melanchthon,  338-345, 

349  ff. 
as  taught  by  Prussian  theologians, 

463. 
as  taught  by  Selneccer,  442-445. 
as  taught  by  Strigel,  360  ff. 
in    Augsburg   confession,    116. 
in  Catholic  confutation,  135. 
in    Concord   formula,    480-483,   487, 

502,  504. 
in  Formula  of  pacification  of  Duke 

of  Mecklenburg,  347-348. 
in   Swabian-Saxon   concordia,   481. 
in  Torgau  book,  423. 
Freytag,     Gustav,     on     the     Lutheran 

ministers,  546. 
Fritschel,  G.,  and  Predestination  con- 
troversy, 620. 


G 

Gallus,  Nicholas,  325. 

General    Council    of    the    Evangelical 

Lutheran   Church    in  N.   A.,   608- 

612. 
General     Synod     of    the     Evangelical 

Lutheran    Church    in    the    U.    S., 

606-608. 
George,     margrave    of     Brandenburg, 

12'' 


630 


INDEX. 


George   Ernest,   count   of   Henneberg, 

and  pacification  efforts,  414  ff. 
George  Frederick,  margrave  of  Prus- 
sia,   and    the    Concord    formula, 
497. 
Gerliard,    Johann. 

"Loci   communes    theologici, "    540. 
Gerhard,  Eobert. 

' '  Sj'mboliker       und       Anti-symboli- 
ker,"  579. 
German  Iowa  synod,  613-614. 
German  Puseyism.     See  New  Luther- 

anism. 
Gieseler,  Johann,  on  Augsburg  confes- 
sion as  a  symbol,  290. 
Glassius,     Solomon,     on     Syncretistic 

controversy,  544. 
God.     See  Christ,  Trinity. 
Good  works: 

as  viewed  by  Andreae,  406. 
as  viewed  by  Major,  394. 
in  Augsburg  confession,  117. 
in  Catholic  confutation,   133,   135. 
See  also  Conversion,  Free-will,  New 
obedience. 
Goslar  order,   286. 


H 
Hagen,    Bernhard,    in    committee    of 

six,  170. 
Hagenau  colloquy  of  1540,  246. 
Halle,  University   of,  554. 
Hamburg  theologians  on  Torgau  book, 

461. 
Harless,   Adolph,   and   the   symbolical 

books,  581. 
Harms,  Claus. 

and  Eationalism,  573-575. 
his  95  theses,  574. 
Hauck,  Albert,  on  Church  union,  617 

note. 
Hauge's  synod,  622. 
Hebrew  psalter,  2. 
Heidelberg  catechism,  511. 
Heller,  Sebastian,  170. 
Helmstadt    theologians    on    the    Book 

of    Concord,    529. 
Hengstenberg     and     the     Symbolical 

books,  579. 
Henry  VIII.   and  Schmalkald  league, 

245-246. 
Herdessianus,     Christopher,     and     the 

Concord  formula,  508. 
Hergenrother,    Cardinal,    on    Schmal- 
kald convention,  242. 
Hermann,  elector  of  Cologne. 

impressed  by  reading  of  Augsburg 

confession,  91. 
llesse    theologians    on    Torgau    book, 

453. 
Heshuss,  Tilemann. 


letter  and  opinion  on  Torgau  book, 

430,  462. 
on    Andreae 's    pacification    efforts, 

403. 
on  free-will,  364. 
Hillsbach  meeting,  291. 
Hoffmann,    Daniel,    on    the    Book    of 

Concord,   531. 
Hofmann,  J.  C.  K.  von. 

"Schriftbeweis,"  585. 
Hohenlohe  corpus  doctrinae,  308,  319. 
Hollazius,  David,  and  Pietism,  554. 
Holstein  theologians  on  Torgau  book, 

452. 
Holy  alliance,  576. 
Hiigel,  Andi'eas,  and  the  Confutation 

book,  358. 
Hutter,  Leonhard,  539. 

"Loci  communes  theologici,"  540. 
Hymn-book,  first  German.     See  Acht- 
liederbuch. 


Icelandic  synod,  622. 
Imperial    decree    of    Augsburg    diet, 
235-239. 

Luther  on,  240. 

Summary    of,   by    Sleidanus,    237. 

Wittenberg  jurists  on,  239. 
Imperial    rescript    summoning    Augs- 
burg diet,  24. 
Ingolstadt  theological  faculty,  41. 
Interims,   320-329. 


Jacobs,  H.  E. 

on   Melanchthon 's   Lutheran   sound- 
ness in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per, 228  note. 
' '  A     summary     of     the     Christian 
faith,"  612. 
Jena  consistorial  order  of  1569,  307. 
Jena   theologians. 

and  the  Book  of  Concord,  528. 
on    Andreae 's    pacification    efforts, 
403. 
Jena  University  established,  327. 
Jesus  Christ.     See  Christ. 
Joachim,  elector  of  Brandenburg, 
and  Imperial  interim,  250,  254. 
attack  on  Elector  of  Saxony,  142. 
Johannsen  on  the  symbolists  and  anti- 
symbolists,  582. 
John,    duke    of    Holstein,    on    Torgau 

book,  453. 
John,  elector  of  Saxony. 

"Articles   concerning   faith."      See 

Schwabach  articles. 
"Confession   of   faith,"   40,   43-45, 

63. 
exhorts  Protestant  princes  at  Augs- 
burg diet,   79. 


INDEX. 


631 


letter  to  Luther  on  reading  of  Augs- 
burg confession,  88. 
' '  Opinion ' '  on  invitation  to  Council 

at  Mantua,  269. 
refusal    to    follow    Emperor's    sum- 
mons to  meet  at  Cologne,  240. 
John  Frederick,  duke  of  Saxony, 
and  Naumburg  diet,  292  ff. 
and  Weimar  confutation-book,  358.. 
John    Frederick,    elector    of    Saxony, 

326. 
John  George,  elector  of  Brandenburg, 
and     subscription     to     the    Concord 
formula,  492. 
John  William,  duke  of   Saxony, 
on   free-will   controversy,   365. 
Joint  synod  of  Ohio,  616. 
Jonas,   Justus,  240. 
Judgment. 

in  Augsburg  confession,  115. 
in  Catholic  confutation,  135. 
Justification  bv  faith,   152,   396. 
and  John  Eck,   149. 
as  viewed  by  Andreae,  405. 
as  viewed  by  Luther,  342. 
central   principle  of   Augsburg  con- 
fession, 97,  99-101,   281. 
in  Augsburg  confession,  107. 
in  Catholic  confutation,  133. 
in      German      Editio      princeps     of 

Augsb.  confession,  217. 
in  German  Variatae  of  1532,  220. 
permeated  the  Augsburg  confession 
and  the  Apology,  281. 


K 
Kahnis,  C.  F. 

"Die  Lutherische  Dogmatik, "  585. 
on   the   Lutheran   preachers   of   the 

17th  century,  534. 
on  the  Symbolical  books,  586-587. 
Kawerau,  Gustav. 

on  Augsburg  confession,  95. 
on  Concord  formula,  484,  506. 
Kenotism,  507. 
Keys,  power  of,  51. 

See    also    Confession,    Ecclesiastical 
power. 
Knaake,  Joachim. 

comparison   of   Augustana    and   the 
Schwabach  articles,  66-67. 
Koehler,  on  the  Symbolical  l)ooks.  590. 
Koerner,  Christopher,  451. 
Kolde,  Theodor. 

on  Augsburg  confession,  96. 
on  Concord  formula,  489. 
on  Editio  princeps  of  Augsburg  con- 
fession, 214. 
on  Editio  princeps  of  Book  of  Con- 
cord, 519-520. 
on   Luther's   relation   to   reconcilia- 
tion efforts  at  Augsburg,  195. 


Kollner,  on  Lutheran  symbols,  309. 

on  subscription  to  the  symbols,  582. 
Kostlin,   Julius,   on   Luther's  view   of 

the  confessions,   280. 
Krypticism,  383. 
Kurtz,  J.  H. 

on  Lutherism,  313. 

on  the  Concord  formula,  485. 


Law.     See  Ten  Commandments. 
Leibnitz,  G.  W.,  560. 
Leipzig  interim  of  1548,  322,  392. 
Leipzig  theologians. 

and  the  Book  of  Concord,  527. 
Liber  Augustanus,  321. 
Liberum  arbitrium.     See  Free-will. 
Lichtenberg  convention,  419. 
Lippe  order,  309. 
Locke,  John,  559. 

Loescher,  V.   E.,  and   Pietism,   554. 
Lord's  Supper,  149,  157-159,  163,  3S7- 
392. 
and  Crypto-Calvinism,  329. 
as     endorsed     by     Naumburg     diet, 

302. 
as  taught  by  Andreae,  435. 
as  taught  by  Calixtus,  543. 
as  taught  by  Chemnitz,  439. 
as  taught  by  Chytraeus,  449. 
as  taught  by  Luther,  183,  186. 
as  taught  by  Melanchthon,  389. 
at  second  Bergen  meeting,  474. 
discussion  of  both  species  at  Naum- 
burg diet,  294. 
in  Apology,  267. 
in    Augsburg    confession,    111-112. 

119. 
in  Catholic  confutation,  134-135. 
in  Concord  formula,  480. 
in   Confessio   Augustana  variata   of 

1.540,  226-227. 
in  Elector's  confession  of  1530,  43. 
in    oldest    redaction    of    Augsburg 

confession,  56. 
in  Torgau  confession,  331. 
Melanchthon 's  view  on,  not  Zwing- 

lian,  305. 
See  also  Christ,  ubiquity  of. 
Ludwig,  duke  of  Wiirtemberg, 

and  the  subscription  to  the  Concord 
formula,   496. 
Liibeck   theologians   on   Torgau   book, 

461. 
Liineburg  order,  307. 
Liineburg  theologians  on  Torgau  book, 

461. 
Luthardt,   Chr.,   on   Concord    formula, 

488. 
Luther,   Martin,   3-9. 

Christology  of,  372-374. 
conception    of    the    Lord's    Supper, 
387-392. 


682 


INDEX. 


inspected  only  first  draft  of  Augs- 
burg confession,  57-58. 

letter  to  Archbishop  of  Mayence  on 
Augsb.   confession,  204-205. 

letter  to  Cordatus  on  Augsb.  con- 
fession,  203. 

letter  to  Elector  of  July  9  on 
Augsb.  confession,  205. 

letter  to  Elector  of  August  26,  182- 
185. 

letter  to  Elector  on  Zwinglianism, 
18. 

letter  to  Jonas  on  efforts  of  con- 
ciliation at  Augsburg  diet,  187. 

letter  to  Jonas  on  lack  of  informa- 
tion from  Augsburg  diet,  195. 

letter  to  Jonas  on  preparation  for 
Augsburg  diet,  27. 

letter  to  Jonas  on  Protestant  con- 
cessions at  Augsburg  diet,  202. 

letter  to  Melanchthon  on  efforts  of 
reconciliation  at  Augsburg  diet, 
185-187. 

letter  to  Melanchthon  on  receipt  of 
Augsburg  confession,   200. 

letter  to  Spalatin  of  August  26, 
1530,  185. 

letter  to  Spengler  of  August  28, 
1530,  189. 

not  the  chief  author  of  Augsburg 
confession,  196-207. 

oath  at  his  promotion  to  the  doc- 
torate,  5   note. 

on  baptism,  386. 

on  the  Loci  communes  of  Melanch- 
thon, 467  note. 

"Opinion"  of  Luther  and  others 
on  Imperial  decree  of  Augsburg 
diet,   240. 

' '  Opinion ' '  on  Protestant  conces- 
sions at   Augsburg   diet,   188-189. 

ordination   formula  of  Luther,  284. 

qualities  of  his  leadership,  3. 

reason  for  leaving  him  at  Coburg, 
37-38. 

relation     to     Augsburg     confession, 

194-207. 
Spengler  on  failure  to  secure  Luth- 
er's ad\ice  at  Augsburg  diet,  179. 

Works : 

Articuli,  so  da  hiilten  sollen  aufs 
Concilium  zu  Mantua,  1538,  273. 
Catechisms,  editions  of,  255-260. 
(not  given  early  rank  as  symbols, 

288.) 
Concerning    Christian    libertv,    7, 

52. 
De   servo  arbitvio,  333,  363,   365- 

366. 
Formida  Missae,  8. 
German  Mass  and  order  of  Divine 
service,  8,  256. 


Greater  confession  of  the  Lord 's 

Supper,  8,  388. 
Order  of  worship  in  the  congrega- 
tion, 8. 
Prelude    on    the    Babylonish    cap- 
tivity of  the  church,  7,  52. 
Short  iform  of  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, 255-256. 
Small  confession  of  the  Holy  Sac- 
rament, 388. 
The  three  symbols,  276. 
To   the  Christian  nobility  of  the 

German  nation,  6,  52. 
Yisitation  articles,  276. 
Lutheran  church  in  America,  601-623. 
Lutheran  church  in  Denmark,  597. 
Lutheran  church  in  Norway,  597-598. 
Lutheran  church  in  Prussia,   576-578. 

See  also  Prussian  theologians. 
Lutheran  Church  in  Sweden,  598-600. 
Lutheran    confessions. 

growing  veneration  for,  308. 
in  the  19th  century,  571. 
See  also   Confessionalists,   Lutheran 
symbols. 
Lutheran   dogmatic,  532-545. 

of  the  17th  century,  criticised,  542 
Lutheran   dogmatieians,   539. 
Lutheran    orthodoxy.       See    Lutheran 

dogmatic. 
liUtheran  symbols,  421. 
and  Rationalism,  568. 
authority  of,  309-310. 
authority    of.  in    the    17th    century, 

537. 
as  A-iewed  by  J.  A.  Bengel,  556. 
as  viewed  by  Spener,  553. 
as  viewed  by  Walch,  555. 
editions  of,  578. 
in  America,  601-623. 
See  also   Confessionalists,  Lutheran 
confessions. 
Lutheran  synod,  578. 
Lutherans   in   America   and   the    Con- 
cord  formula,  507. 
Lutheranism. 

characteristics  of,  615-616. 
spread  of,  23,  249. 
Lutheranism,  new.     See  New  Luther- 
anism. 
Lutherism,  306,  313-314,  399. 
in  the  Concord  formula,  465. 

M 

Magdeburg  centuries,  325. 
Magdeburg     theologians     on     Torgau 

book,   458. 
Mahometans  on  Christ,  106. 
Major,  Georg,  394-399. 

on  good  works,  394. 
Majoristic  controversy,  394-399. 


INDEX. 


633 


Manichgeans,  105. 

Mansfeld   ministers   ou    free-will   con- 
troversy, 364. 
Mantua,  general  council  of  1537,  268. 
Marburg  articles,  9,  20,  61. 
Marburg  conference  of  1529,  19-20. 
Marburg  University,  23. 
Marriage  of  priests,  163-164. 
in  Augsburg  confession,  119. 
in    Catholic    confutation,    135. 
Martensen,  Hans. 

on  Concord  formula,  488. 
on  the  Symbolical  books,  599. 
Mass,  15,  160,  171,  178. 

in  Augsburg  confession,  119. 
in  Catholic  confutation,  136. 
in  Luther's  Articles  for  Council  at 

Mantua,  274. 
opinion     of     Luther     in     letter     to 

Elector,  183-184. 
oi)inion  of  Seller,  178. 
Mathesius,   Johann,  and  the   Book   of 

Concord,  528. 
Matthes,  Carl,  on  symbolical  character 

of  Augsburg  confession,  278. 
Maulbronn    formula,    414-417. 
at   Torgau  convention,   422. 
Maurice,  elector  of  Saxony,  326. 
Meats,  160. 

See  also  Fasts. 
Meats,  distinction  of,  120,  136. 
Mecklenburg        ' '  Formula        pacifiea- 

tionis, ' '  and  free-will,  347-348. 
Mecklenburg    theologians    on    Torgau 

book,  459. 
Melanchthon,   Philip,   9-11. 

Augsburg     confession,     chosen     as 

framer   of,   49. 
Augsburg     confession,     his     classic 

monument,   68-73. 
author   of   the   statutes   of   Witten- 
berg theological  faculty,  282. 
censured    by    Prussian    theologians, 

464-465.  ' 
Christology  of,  374-375. 
confutation  of  the  Osiandrian   doc- 
trine, 380. 
defended  by  Anhalt  theolgians,  456. 
defended  by  Magdeburg  theologians, 

458. 
deserves  thanks  for  his  ' '  variatae ' ' 
editions   of   Augsburg  confession, 
232. 
letter    to    Cardinal    Campeggius    of 

July  6,  1530,  139. 
letter  to  Luther  of  August  22,  1530, 

167-168. 
Lutheran  soundness  in  regard  to  the 
Lord's  Supper,  227-229.  I 

mental  attitude  in  1530,  47-48.  j 

on  Augsburg  interim,  321. 
on  free-will,  341,  349-358. 
on  predestination  and  free-will,  338.  | 


opinion    on    invitation    to     general 

council  at  Mantua,  269. 
report    on    articles,    not    settled    by 

committee  of  fourteen,  166-167. 
reports  on  progress  of  Apology,  263- 

264. 
Torgau  articles  penned  by,  35. 
view  on  the  Lord's  Supper,  389. 
view    on    the    Lord's    Supper,    not 

Zwinglian,  305. 
Works : 

Corpus  doctrinae  Christianae,  314- 

316,  389. 
Loci  communes,  11,  312. 
The  power  and  jurisdiction  of  the 

bishops,  273. 
Tractate   on   the   power   and   pri- 
macy of  the  Pope,  273. 
Melanchthonism,  306,  314,  399. 
Michaelis,  J.  D.,  563. 
Ministerium  of  New  York. 

See  New  York  Ministerium. 
Ministerium  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  the  Eeformed  cliurch,  604. 
and  the  Symbolical  books,  602,  605. 
Ministry  of  the  church,  108,  133,  614. 

See  also  Ecclesiastical  orders. 
Missourians.      See    Synodical    confer- 
ence. 
Monastic  vows.     See  Vows  of  monks. 
Mosheim,  J.   L  ,   on  the  Concord   for- 
mula, 512. 
Miiller,  Karl. 

on  the  Concord  formula,  485. 
on  subscription  to  the  Concord  for- 
mula, 492. 
Musculus,  Andreas,  450-451. 

N 

Naumburg    convention    of    1554,    248, 
250. 

Naumburg  diet,  290-301,  307. 

Preface     to     Augsburg     confession 
prepared  by  the  two  Electors,  298. 
subscribes   German   Editio   princeps 
and  Latin  octavo  edition  of  Augs- 
burg confession,  296-298. 

Necessitarianism.     See  Predestination. 

Neuberg  tlieologians  on  Torgau  book, 
454. 

New  Lutheranism,  583-590. 

New  obedience,  109. 

New  York  Ministerium  and  the  Sym- 
bolical books,   603. 

Norway    and    the    Lutheran    svmbols, 
597-598. 

Norwegian  synod,  622. 

Niirnberg  commissioners. 

on   meeting   of   Evangelical   princes 
and    estates,    June    21,    at    Augs- 
burg diet,  81. 
on  opening  of  Augsburg  diet,  77. 


634 


INDEX. 


on  preparation  of  Augsburg  confes- 
sion, 58-59. 
on  reading  of  Augsburg  confession, 

84,  88. 
on  signing  of  Augsburg  confession, 

83. 
report    on    Melanchthon 's    progress 
with  Augsburg  confession,  58-60. 
Niirnberg  Normal  book,  319. 
Niirnberg  Senate. 

"Judicium  et  censura,   '  174-177. 
Niirnberg  theologians  and  the  Concord 
formula,  503. 

O 
Ohio,  Joint  synod  of,  616. 
Opus  operatum,  171. 

See     also     Lord's     Supper,     Sacra- 
mental controversy. 
Orders,  Ecclesiastical.     See  Ecclesias- 
tical orders. 
Ordination  certificate  issued  by  Bugen- 

hagen  and  Forster,  285. 
Original  sin. 

as  viewed  by  Andreae,  407. 

in    Apology    of    Augsb.    confession, 

266-267. 
in  Augsburg  confession,  106. 
in  Catholic  confutation,  133. 
in  German  variata  of  1532,  220. 
in    Melanchthon 's    Loci    communes, 

340-341. 
in  Torgau  book,  423. 
Osiander,  Andreas,   313,   376-378. 
Christology  of,  377-378. 
"Of  the  only  mediator  Jesus  Christ 
and  justification  by  faith,"  376. 
Osiander,  Luke,  and  Maulbronn  form- 
ula, 415. 


Pacification  efforts,  400-417. 

Paul  III.  proclaims  general  council  to 

assemfjle  at  Mantua,  268. 
Pelagians  on  original  sin,   106. 
Penance.     See  Eepentance. 
Pennsylvania  Ministerium.     See  Min- 

isterium  of  Pennsylvania. 
Peucer,  Caspar,  331. 
Pfaff,  C.  M.,  and  Pietism,  556. 
PfeflBnger,  Johann. 

' '  Demonstratio       manifest!       men- 
dacii, ' '  354. 

* '  Questioues    quinque    de    libertate 
voluntatis  humanae,"  251. 
Philip,  landgrave  of  Hesse  and  Mar- 
burg conference  of  1529,  19. 

and  Zwinglianism,  78. 
Philippi,  F.  A. 

' '  Kirchliche   Glaubenslehre, ' '    584. 

' '  Lectures  on  symbolics, ' '  586. 

on  Luther's  De  servo  arbitrio,  336. 
Philippists. 

and  Lord's  Supper,  478. 


on  free-will,  366-367. 
stigmatized      as      Crypto-Calvinists, 
329. 
Philosophy,  Modern,  558-565. 
Pia  desideria  of  Spener,  549. 
Pietism,  547-558. 

and  New  Lutheranism,  584. 
Planck,  Gottlieb. 

'  *  Geschichte     der     protestantischen 

theologie,"  508. 
on  authorship  of  Augsburg  confes- 
sion, 72. 
on  Concord  formula,  513. 
on  Melanchthon 's  teachings  regard- 
ing free-will,  344. 
Plitt,   Gustav,   on  Luther's   participa- 
tion in  framing  of  Augsburg  con- 
fession, 197-198. 
Pomeranian  order. 

and  Lutheran  confessions,  287. 
Pomeranian  synod  of  1577. 

on  Torgau  book,  455. 
Pomeranian  synod  of  1578. 

on  free-will,  343. 
Pomeranian  theologians. 

on  the  Concord  formula,  501. 
Pope,  Power  and  primacy  of,  273. 

Luther  on,  274. 
Pope,    the    "true    Antichrist,"    275, 

614. 
Power  of  the  Keys. 

See  Keys,  Power  of. 
Predestination,  333  ff. 
and  Flacianism,  357. 
as  defended  by  Amsdorf,  356. 
See  also  Free-will. 
Predestination  controversy,  618-621. 
Presence   of    Christ   in   Holy    Supper. 

See  Lord's  Supper. 
Priests,   marriage   of.      See   Marriage 

of  priests. 
Protestant  appeal  at  Diet  of  Speyer, 

14-16. 
Protestant  preaching,   74-75. 
Protestant  princes. 

reply    to    Catholic    committee,    143- 
145. 
Protestant  theologians. 

"Opinion"  on  the  subject  of  con- 
cord,    presented     to     Protestant 
princes,  147-148. 
Prussian  national  church,  576-578. 
Prussian  theologians. 

on    Melanchthon 's    teachings,    464- 

465. 
on  Torgau  book,  462-466. 
Public    confession    of    the    pure    doc- 
trine of  the  gospel,  by  Amsdorf, 
354. 
Pulpits,  exchange  of,  611,  613. 


Quedliuburg  colloquy,  530-532. 


IXDEX. 


635 


Quenstedt,  J.  A. 

' '  Theologia        didaetico-poleniica, ' ' 
541. 

Questiones  quiuque  de  libertate  volun- 
tatis humanae,  by  Pfeffinger,  251. 

R 
Kanke,  Leopold  von. 

Augsburg  confession,  93. 
Augsburg    confession    not    intended 

as  a  norm  for  all  times,  232. 
on  Augsburg  interim,  321. 
on    dogmatic    import    of    Augsburg 

confession,  277. 
on  Sclimalkald  league,  242. 
Rationalism,  565-570. 

and  Symbolical  books,  568. 
decline  of,  571. 
Recess,    Imperial,    of    Augsburg    diet.' 
See    Imperial    decree    of    Augsburg 
diet. 
Reconciliatorv   spirit  of   Saxon   court, 

26. 
Reformed  church, 
in  America,  605-607. 
in  Germany,  511. 
in  Prussia,  576-578. 
See  also  Zwinglian  influence  in  Ger- 
many, 16-20. 
Regensburg  colloquy  of  1541,  247. 
Rehtmeyer,  Philip. 

on  changes  in  Torgau  book,  480.  . 
Repentance,  113,   134. 
Richter,  Aemilius  L. 

on   the   Symbolical   books,   580-581. 
Rites.     See  Ecclesiastical  rites. 
Rotach  convention,  18-19. 
Rotermund    on    transactions    of    com- 
mittee of  fourteen,  165. 
Rudelbach,  A.  G. 

' '  Introduction  to  the  Augsburg  con- 
fession,"  578. 
' '  Reformation,      Lutherthum      und 

Union,"  578. 
svmbolical    character    of    Augsburg 
'  confession,  279,  288. 


Saalfeld  meeting  of  1829,  20. 
Sacramental  controversy,  386-392. 
Sacramental     presence.       See    Lord's 

Supper. 
Sacraments,  114,  133. 

and    New   Lutheranism,    584. 
Saints. 

Niirnberg  Senate  on,  176. 

worship  of,  117,  135. 
Salig,  Christian. 

on  free-will  controversv,  362,  363. 

on  "Yariata"  of  1540,  303. 
Saltzburg,  archbishop  of. 

on  reconciliation,  141. 


Samosatanians  on  Christ,  106. 
Sartorius,    Ernst. 

and  the  Symbolical  books,  580. 
Saxon    Christology.      See    Christology, 

Saxon. 
Saxon  consistorial  order,  301. 
Saxon  formulae   of  subscription,   591, 

592. 
Saxon  order  of  1539,  286,  288. 
Saxon    theologians    on    Torgau    book, 

460. 
Saxon  visitation  articles  of  1533,  282. 
Scandinavian    Lutheran    svnods,    621- 

622. 
Scheele,  K.  H.  G.  von. 

on  the  Lutheran   symbols,  599. 
Schirrmacher,  F.  W. 

on  the  reading  of  the  Augsburg  con- 
fession, 89. 
Schleiermacher,  F.  D.  E.,  571-573. 

' '  Discourses  on  religion, ' '  571. 
Schleswig-Holstein   theologians. 

and  the  Concord  formula,  500. 
Schliisselburg,  Conrad. 

on  free-will,  367  note. 
Schmalkald   articles. 

prepared  by  Luther,  270-271. 
their  relation  as  symbols,  288. 
Schmalkald    colloquies,    246-247. 
Schmalkald  convention  of  1529,  122. 
Schmalkald   convention   of   1537,   245, 

272. 
Schmalkald  convention  of  1540,  246. 
Schmalkald   league,   241-245. 

and  Augsburg  confession,  242-243. 
von  Ranke's  opinion  on,  242. 
Schmid,  Heinrieh. 

' '  Die     Dogmatik     der     evangelisch- 
lutherischen  Kirche, ' '  585. 
Schmidt,  Carl. 

on  authorship  of  Augsburg  confes- 
sion,  70. 
Schmucker,  S.  S. 

on  the  Symbolical  books  in  the  Ger- 
man Lutheran  church  of  America, 
605. 
Schopf,  J.  W. 

on  authorship  of  Augsburg  confes- 
sion,  72. 
Schubert,  Hans  von. 

on  Schwabach  articles,  21  note. 
Schiitz,  O.  F. 

on  changes  in  Torgau  book,  480. 
Schwabach  articles,  9,  21,  29,  61-6S. 
authorship  of,  62. 
relation  to  Elector's  confession,  43. 
Secret  societies,  611,  613. 
Seller,  Geryon. 

letter  to  Spalatin  on  Committee  of 
fourteen,  177-178. 
Selneceer,  Nicholas,  369,  441-445. 
and  revision   of   Torgau  book,   470- 
477. 


636 


INDEX. 


at  Lichtenberg  convention,  420-421. 
on  changes  in  Torgau  book,  479. 
on  Jacob  Andreae,  433. 
Works : 

Commentary  on  Genesis,  442. 
Institutio    religionis    Christianae, 

405,  442. 
Necessary  reply  to  the  calumnies 
of  the  Flacianists  at  Altenburg, 
444. 
Semler,  J.  S. 

and  the  Symbolical  books,  568. 
and  theological  rationalism,  566. 
Simmern  theologians. 

on  Torgau  book,  455. 
Sin,  Cause  of,  117,  135. 
Sin  of  origin.     See  Original  sin. 
Sleidanus,   Johannes. 

on    Imperial    decree    of    Augsburg 
diet.  237. 
Soteriological  controversy,  386-399. 
Spener,   P.   J,   310,   547-554. 
"On  academic  studies,"  553. 
on  Symbolical  books,  553. 
on  the  lack  of  Biblical  study  in  his 

time,  532. 
preface    to    John    Arndt's    Postils, 
549. 
Spengler,  Lazarus. 

on  Committee  of  fourteen,  178-179. 
Speyer,  diet  of  1526,  4. 
Speyer,  diet  of  1529,  11-16. 
Stahl,  F.  J. 

and  New  Lutheranism,  584 
on  the  church  of  Prussia,  576. 
Stahl,   Julius. 

on  Concord  formula,  488. 
Stanear,  Francis. 

and    the   Christological   controversy, 
378-380. 
Strassburg  confession.     See  Confessio 

Tetrapolitana,  243. 
Strigel  Victorin,  358-363. 
on  conversion,  367. 
on  free-will  in  Weimar  disputation, 

359-363. 
"Loci  theologici,"  368. 
Subscription     formula     of     Synodical 

conference,  613. 
Subscription  formulae,  538,  591-600. 
Supranaturalism,   566. 
Synodical  statutes  of  Pomerania,  307. 
Swabian  Christology.    See  Christology, 

Swabian. 
Swabian  Concordia,  412. 
Swabian   Hall   and    Augsburg   confes- 
sion, 287. 
Swabian-Saxon  Concordia,  413. 
•   at  Torgau  convention,  422. 

on  free-will,  481. 
Sweden    and    the    Lutheran    symbols, 

598. 
Swedish  Augustana  synod,  621. 


Swedish    church   in   America. 

and  the  Lutheran  symbols,  601. 
Symbolists.      See    Confessionalists. 
Symbols.     See  Lutheran  symbols. 
Syncretistie  controversy,  543-545. 
Synergistic   controversy,   351-371. 

See  also  Free-will,  Predestination. 
Synod   of   Pennsylvania.      See    Minis- 

terium  of  Pennsylvania. 
Synodical  conference,  612-616. 


Ten     Commandments,     as     viewed    by 

Andreae,  408. 
Theologia   irregenitorum,    551-552. 
Thomasius,   Christian,  559. 

' '  Christi  Person  und  Werk, ' '  585. 
Torgau  articles,  28,  30-36. 
Torgau  book,  418-468. 

Andreae 's  epitome  of,  469. 

censures  of,  452-468. 

first  revision  of,  470-473. 

precursor    of   the    Concord   formula, 
424. 

second  revision  of,  473-477. 
Torgau  confession,  331. 
Torgau  convention  of  1574,  331. 
Torgau  convention  of  1576,  422-425. 
Transubstantiation,   153. 

in    Augsburg   confession,    112,    227- 
229. 

in  Catholic   confutation,   134. 

discussed    at    Naumburg    diet,    294, 
299. 

rejected  in  Torgau  confession,  331. 

See  also  Lord  's  Supper. 
Trinity.   105,   133. 
Tschackert,  Paul. 

Edition  of   ' '  unaltered ' '   Augsburg 
confession,  105,  210. 
Tiibingen    book.      See    Swabian    Con- 
cordia. 

U 

Ubiquity  of  Christ. 

See  Christ,  ubiquity  of. 
United    Norwegian    Lutheran    church, 

621. 
United     synod      of     the     Evangelical 
Lutheran    church    in    the    South, 
623. 
Universities,  German, 
founding  of,  2. 


V 

Valdesius,  Alphonso. 

interviews    with    Melanchthon,    138. 
Valentinians,   105. 
Vehus,  Hieronymus,  170. 
Visitation  articles,  8. 


I]\^DEX. 


637 


Visitation  order  for  Allstedt,  2J 
Voluntas  beneplaciti,  337. 
Voluntas  signi,  337. 

See  also  Free-will. 
Vows  of  monks,  160. 

in  Augsburg  confession,  121. 

in  Catholic  confutation,   136. 


W 
Walch.  J.  G. 

and  Pietism,  555. 

and  the  Symbolical  books,  555. 

on  the   religious   condition   of   Ger- 
many  during    17th    century,   546. 
TValdech 'order,  308. 
Walther,  C.  F.  W.,  618-621. 
Weber.  G.  G. 

on  Augsburg  confession,  46-47,  71. 

on  Latin  variata  of  1540,  230. note. 
Wegscheider,  J.  A.  L. 

and  rationalism,  567. 

' '  Institutiones       theologiae       chris- 
tianae  dogmatieae, ' '  567. 
Weimar    Confutation    book    of    1559, 

358,  401. 
Weimar  disputation,  358-361. 
Wigand,  Johann. 

on  free-will,  365. 

on  Torgau  book,  462. 
Will,  Free.     See  Free-will. 
"Wittenberg  consistory. 

constitution  and  articles,  286. 
Wittenberg  jurists. 

on    Imperial    decree    of    Augsburg 
diet,  239. 
Wittenberg  order  of   1533,   288. 
Wittenberg   theologians. 

and  the  Book  of  Concord,  528. 

' '  Confession   and    opinion   on    free- 
will,"   368. 

on  the  Symbolical  books,  538. 

^ '  Summary  of  the  chief  chapters  of 


Christian   doctrine   taught   in   the 
University,"   369. 
Wittenberg  theological  faculty. 

aifirmation  of  Augsburg  confession 
by  candidates  for  promotion,  283. 
and  syncretistic  controversy,  544. 
statutes,    relation    of,   to    Augsburg 
confession,  282. 
Wittenberg    theses,    1,    6. 
Wolff,   Christian,   561. 

"Theologia  naturalis, "   562. 
Wolfgang,  prince  of  Anhalt,  122. 
Works,  good.     See  Good  works. 
Worms,  colloquy  of  1540,  246-247. 
Worms,  colloquy  of  1557,  229,  290. 
Worms,  diet  of  1557,  328. 
Wiirtemberg  order,  287,  309. 
Wiirtemberg  theologians, 
on  Torgau  book,  453. 


Zeichem,  Viglius,  209. 

Zelle,  convention  of,  321. 

Zerbst  conference  of  1570,  403-404. 

Zockler,  Otto. 

on  scheme  of  Augsburg  confession, 
102-103. 

on  the  Symbolical  books,  588. 
Zweibriicken  order,  30J. 
Zweibriicken    theologians. 

on  Torgau  book,  455. 
Zwingli,  Ulrich. 

conference  with  Lutherans  at  Mar- 
burg, 1529,  19. 

on     the     two     natures     of     Christ 
(aloosis)  373. 
Zwinglian  influence  in  Germany,  16-20. 

See  also   Reformed   church   in   Ger- 
many. 
Zwinglians. 

and  Augsburg  diet,  78. 

and  the  Lord's  Supper,  227. 


Date  Due 


■i    !8 


rAGULs 


^  II 'i^^ 


jtm^fr499» 


''f-X-3     n^ 


^ 


Hfefc-*- 


D  J»*  ''  "^^ 


14. 


MUbi!   9   1^  jCjg^-.^. 


11 


-J^if. 


^■ivS" 


v«. 


%■!<% 


^li.: 


p  •-y'''r.ii.; : 


;^'j*i^ 


